Cochrane · systematic review · CD010510
Different‐sized incisions for phacoemulsification in age‐related cataract
Jin, C, Chen, X, Law, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
24
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 29.2%Ungraded 1 · 4.2%Very low 3 · 12.5%Low 12 · 50%Moderate 1 · 4.2%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
Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) versus standard phacoemulsification
Population: adults with age‐related cataract
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean postoperative surgically induced astigmatism Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Mean postoperative best‐corrected visual acuity Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean endothelial cell loss Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Central corneal thickness Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events (corneal edema) Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | RR 1.02 | NR | Ungraded |
Quality of life Larger coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) versus standard phacoemulsification
Population: adults with age‐related cataract
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean postoperative surgically induced astigmatism Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Mean postoperative best‐corrected visual acuity Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean change of endothelial cell loss Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean change of central corneal thickness Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) versus larger C‐MICS
Population: adults with age‐related cataract
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean postoperative surgically induced astigmatism Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs larger C‐MICS | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Mean postoperative best‐corrected visual acuity Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs larger C‐MICS | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Mean change of endothelial cell loss Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs larger C‐MICS | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean central corneal thickness Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs larger C‐MICS | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs larger C‐MICS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Smaller coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C‐MICS) vs larger C‐MICS | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) versus standard phacoemulsification
Population: adults with age‐related cataract
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean postoperative surgically induced astigmatism Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean postoperative best‐corrected visual acuity Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Mean endothelial cell loss Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Postoperative central corneal thickness Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Biaxial microincision cataract surgery (B‐MICS) vs standard phacoemulsification | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |