Cochrane · systematic review · CD011349

Conjunctival autograft for pterygium

Clearfield, E, Muthappan, V, Wang, X, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · 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
7
current version
GRADE rated
2
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 71.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 14.3%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

Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft compared to amniotic membrane transplant

Population: people with primary or recurrent pterygium
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Recurrence of pterygium
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
RR 0.87 [0.43, 1.77]NRVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Recurrence of pterygium
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
RR 0.53 [0.33, 0.85]NRModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias
Clinical improvement (non‐recurrence risk)
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Need for repeat surgery
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Mean change in visual acuity
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Quality of life
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Direct and indirect costs
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
no estimate extractedNRNo studies