Cochrane · systematic review · CD010469
Corticosteroid implants for chronic non‐infectious uveitis
Reddy, A, Liu, S-H, Brady, CJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 6 · 42.9%Moderate 8 · 57.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 3 versionsSteroid implant versus sham procedure
Population: people with chronic non‐infectious uveitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants with recurrence of uveitis Steroid implant vs sham procedure | RR 0.4 [0.3, 0.54] | 2 studies · 282 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean difference in BCVA (logMAR) Steroid implant vs sham procedure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 153 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean difference in quality of life scores (NEI‐VFQ25) Steroid implant vs sham procedure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 146 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of participants with cataract formation/progression, or surgery Steroid implant vs sham procedure | RR 2.69 [1.17, 6.18] | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention Steroid implant vs sham procedure | RR 2.81 [1.42, 5.56] | 2 studies · 282 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of participants with endophthalmitis Steroid implant vs sham procedure | RR 0.47 [0.1, 2.3] | 2 studies · 280 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of participants with retinal tear or detachment Steroid implant vs sham procedure | RR 1.11 [0.21, 5.75] | 2 studies · 280 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Steroid implant versus standard‐of‐care therapy
Population: people with chronic non‐infectious uveitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of eyes with recurrence of uveitis Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | RR 0.46 [0.35, 0.6] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Mean difference in BCVA (logMAR) Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean difference in quality of life scores*** Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of eyes with cataract formation or progression, or surgery Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | RR 2.71 [2.06, 3.56] | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of eyes with elevated IOP or receiving intervention Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | RR 3.64 [2.71, 4.87] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of eyes with endophthalmitis**** Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | RR 7.3 [0.91, 58.72] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of eyes with retinal tear or detachment Steroid implant vs standard‐of‐care therapy | RR 2.07 [0.51, 8.4] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |