Search

Arginase 1 Deficiency (ARG1-D) is a rare, progressive, metabolic disorder that is characterized by devastating manifestations driven by elevated plasma arginine levels. It typically presents in early childhood with spasticity (predominately affecting the lower limbs), mobility impairment, seizures, developmental delay, and intellectual disability. This systematic review aims to identify and describe the published evidence outlining the epidemiology, diagnosis methods, measures of disease progression, clinical management, and outcomes for ARG1-D patients.A comprehensive literature search across multiple databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, and a review of clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov (with results reported) was carried out per PRISMA guidelines on 20 April 2020 with no date restriction. Pre-defined eligibility criteria were used to identify studies with data specific to patients with ARG1-D. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data from included studies. Quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-comparative studies.Overall, 55 records reporting 40 completed studies and 3 ongoing studies were included. Ten studies reported the prevalence of ARG1-D in the general population, with a median of 1 in 1,000,000. Frequently reported diagnostic methods included genetic testing, plasma arginine levels, and red blood cell arginase activity. However, routine newborn screening is not universally available, and lack of disease awareness may prevent early diagnosis or lead to misdiagnosis, as the disease has overlapping symptomology with other diseases, such as cerebral palsy. Common manifestations reported at time of diagnosis and assessed for disease progression included spasticity (predominately affecting the lower limbs), mobility impairment, developmental delay, intellectual disability, and seizures. Severe dietary protein restriction, essential amino acid supplementation, and nitrogen scavenger administration were the most commonly reported treatments among patients with ARG1-D. Only a few studies reported meaningful clinical outcomes of these interventions on intellectual disability, motor function and adaptive behavior assessment, hospitalization, or death. The overall quality of included studies was assessed as good according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Although ARG1-D is a rare disease, published evidence demonstrates a high burden of disease for patients. The current standard of care is ineffective at preventing disease progression. There remains a clear need for new treatment options as well as improved access to diagnostics and disease awareness to detect and initiate treatment before the onset of clinical manifestations to potentially enable more normal development, improve symptomatology, or prevent disease progression.

To examine the association between clinical trial registration and risk of bias in clinical trials that have been included in systematic reviews. As a secondary objective, we evaluated the risk of bias among trials registered prospectively vs. retrospectively.Clinical trials published in 2005 or after included in a sample of 100 Cochrane systematic reviews published from 2014-2019.Of 1,177 clinical trials identified, we verified 368 (31%) had been registered, of which 135 (36.7%) were registered prospectively (i.e., before or up to 1 month after enrollment of the first participant). Across the bias domains (one bias assessment for each domain per trial), the percentage of trials at low risk ranged from 29% to 58%; unclear risk ranged from to 26% to 61% and high risk ranged from 2% to 38%. Trials that had been registered had less high or unclear risk of bias in five domains: random sequence generation (univariate risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.58-0.81), allocation concealment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57-0.72), performance bias (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72), detection bias (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.78), and reporting bias (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.73). An association between clinical trial registration and high or unclear risk of attrition bias could not be demonstrated nor refuted (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.17). It also was observed in terms of overall risk of bias, that registered trials had less high or unclear overall risk of bias than trials that had not been registered (univariate RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19-0.46). Prospective clinical trial registration was associated with low risks of selection bias due to inadequate allocation concealment, performance bias, and detection bias compared with retrospective clinical trial registration.In a large sample of clinical trials included in recently published systematic reviews of interventions, clinical trial registration was associated with low risk of bias for five of the six domains examined.

Background There is broad recognition of the importance of evidence in informing clinical decisions. When information from all studies included in a systematic review (“review”) does not contribute to a meta-analysis, decision-makers can be frustrated. Our objectives were to use the field of eyes and vision as a case study and examine the extent to which authors of Cochrane reviews conducted meta-analyses for their review’s pre-specified main outcome domain and the reasons that some otherwise eligible studies were not incorporated into meta-analyses. Methods We examined all completed systematic reviews published by Cochrane Eyes and Vision, as of August 11, 2017. We extracted information about each review’s outcomes and, using an algorithm, categorized one outcome as its “main” outcome. We calculated the percentage of included studies incorporated into meta-analyses for any outcome and for the main outcome. We examined reasons for non-inclusion of studies into the meta-analysis for the main outcome. Results We identified 175 completed reviews, of which 125 reviews included two or more studies. Across these 125 reviews, the median proportions of studies incorporated into at least one meta-analysis for any outcome and for the main outcome were 74% (interquartile range [IQR] 0–100%) and 28% (IQR 0–71%), respectively. Fifty-one reviews (41%) could not conduct a meta-analysis for the main outcome, mostly because fewer than two included studies measured the outcome (21/51 reviews) or the specific measurements for the outcome were inconsistent (16/51 reviews). Conclusions Outcome choice during systematic reviews can lead to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses. Core outcome sets and improved reporting of outcomes can help solve some of these problems.

BACKGROUND: Keratoconus is the most common corneal dystrophy. It can cause loss of uncorrected and best‐corrected visual acuity through ectasia (thinning) of the central or paracentral cornea, irregular corneal scarring, or corneal perforation. Disease onset usually occurs in the second to fourth decade of life, periods of peak educational attainment or career development. The condition is lifelong and sight‐threatening. Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using ultraviolet A (UVA) light applied to the cornea is the only treatment that has been shown to slow progression of disease. The original, more widely known technique involves application of UVA light to de‐epithelialized cornea, to which a photosensitizer (riboflavin) is added topically throughout the irradiation process. Transepithelial CXL is a recently advocated alternative to the standard CXL procedure, in that the epithelium is kept intact during CXL. Retention of the epithelium offers the putative advantages of faster healing, less patient discomfort, faster visual rehabilitation, and less risk of corneal haze. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short‐ and long‐term effectiveness and safety of transepithelial CXL compared with epithelium‐off CXL for progressive keratoconus. SEARCH METHODS: To identify potentially eligible studies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not impose any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which transepithelial CXL had been compared with epithelium‐off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with 661 eyes of 567 participants enrolled; 13 to 119 participants were enrolled per study. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, three in the Middle East, and one each in India, Russia, and Turkey. Seven studies were parallel‐group RCTs, one study was an RCT with a paired‐eyes design, and five studies were RCTs in which both eyes of some or all participants were assigned to the same intervention. Eleven studies compared transepithelial CXL with epithelium‐off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. There was no evidence of an important difference between intervention groups in maximum keratometry (denoted 'maximum K' or 'Kmax'; also known as steepest keratometry measurement) at 12 months or later (mean difference (MD) 0.99 diopters (D), 95% CI −0.11 to 2.09; 5 studies; 177 eyes; I(2) = 41%; very low certainty evidence). Few studies described other outcomes of interest. The evidence is very uncertain that epithelium‐off CXL may have a small (data from two studies were not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 92%)) or no effect on stabilization of progressive keratoconus compared with transepithelial CXL; comparison of the estimated proportions of eyes with decreases or increases of 2 or more diopters in maximum K at 12 months from one study with 61 eyes was RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.12) and RR (non‐event) 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), respectively (very low certainty). We did not estimate an overall effect on corrected‐distance visual acuity (CDVA) because substantial heterogeneity was detected (I(2) = 70%). No study evaluated CDVA gain or loss of 10 or more letters on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) chart. Transepithelial CXL may result in little to no difference in CDVA at 12 months or beyond. Four studies reported that either no adverse events or no serious adverse events had been observed. Another study noted no change in endothelial cell count after either procedure. Moderate certainty evidence from 4 studies (221 eyes) found that epithelium‐off CXL resulted in a slight increase in corneal haze or scarring when compared to transepithelial CXL (RR (non‐event) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Three studies, one of which had three arms, compared outcomes among participants assigned to transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis versus those assigned to epithelium‐off CXL. No conclusive evidence was found for either keratometry or visual acuity outcomes at 12 months or later after surgery. Low certainty evidence suggests that transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis results in no difference in logMAR CDVA (MD 0.00 letter, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.04; 2 studies; 51 eyes). Only one study examined gain or loss of 10 or more logMAR letters. In terms of adverse events, one case of subepithelial infiltrate was reported after transepithelial CXL with iontophoresis, whereas two cases of faint corneal scars and four cases of permanent haze were observed after epithelium‐off CXL. Vogt's striae were found in one eye after each intervention. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison due to imprecision of estimates for all outcomes and risk of bias in the studies from which data have been reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of lack of precision, frequent indeterminate risk of bias due to inadequate reporting, and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported among studies in this systematic review, it remains unknown whether transepithelial CXL, or any other approach, may confer an advantage over epithelium‐off CXL for patients with progressive keratoconus with respect to further progression of keratoconus, visual acuity outcomes, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). Arrest of the progression of keratoconus should be the primary outcome of interest in future trials of CXL, particularly when comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to CXL. Furthermore, methods of assessing and defining progressive keratoconus should be standardized. Trials with longer follow‐up are required in order to assure that outcomes are measured after corneal wound‐healing and stabilization of keratoconus. In addition, perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care should be standardized to permit meaningful comparisons of CXL methods. Methods to increase penetration of riboflavin through intact epithelium as well as delivery of increased dose of UVA may be needed to improve outcomes. PROs should be measured and reported. The visual significance of adverse outcomes, such as corneal haze, should be assessed and correlated with other outcomes, including PROs.

Dipstick tests are frequently used as bedside proteinuria tests to evaluate women suspected of preeclampsia and may inform diagnosis in low resource settings lacking laboratory facilities. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) estimate the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks in diagnosing proteinuria, (2) compare performance of different dipstick types and (3) estimate their related costs.MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to August 1, 2020 for primary studies with cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy data on dipstick test(s) compared to a laboratory reference standard (24-hour protein ≥ 300 mg or protein-creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/mmol) in pregnant women ≥ 20 weeks of gestation suspected of preeclampsia. Risk of bias and applicability was assessed with QUADAS-2. Data were analysed using a bivariate model with hierarchical addition of covariates for subgroups.Nineteen studies were included. Protein-only dipsticks at 1 + threshold had a pooled sensitivity of 0.68 [95%CI: 0.57-0.77] and specificity of 0.85 [95% CI: 0.73-0.93] (n = 3700 urine samples, 18 studies). Higher specificity was found with automatedly (0.93 [95% CI: 0.82-0.98]) compared to visually (0.81 [95% CI: 0.65-0.91]) read dipsticks, whereas sensitivity was similar and costs were higher. The use of albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) dipsticks was only reported in two studies and did not improve accuracy. Heterogeneity in study design and prevalence of preeclampsia amongst studies complicated interpretation of pooled estimates.Urine dipsticks performed poorly at excluding preeclampsia in hypertensive pregnant women. Further development of accurate and low-cost bedside proteinuria tests is warranted.

Objectives The objective of the study was to examine whether clinical trials that have been included in systematic reviews have been registered in clinical trial registers and, when they have, whether results of the trials were included in the clinical trial register. Study Design and Setting This study used a sample of 100 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network between 2014 and 2019. Results We identified 2,000 trials (369,778 participants) from a sample of 100 systematic reviews. The median year of trial publication was 2007. Of 1,177 trials published in 2005 or later, a clinical trial registration record was identified for 368 (31%). Of these registered trials, 135 (37%) were registered prospectively and results were posted for 114 (31%); most registered trials evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (62%). Of trials published in the last 10 years, the proportion of registered trials increased to 38% (261 of 682). Conclusion Although some improvement in clinical trial registration has been observed in recent years, the proportion of registered clinical trials included in recently published systematic reviews remains less than desirable. Prospective clinical trial registration provides an essential role in assessing the risk of bias and judging the quality of evidence in systematic reviews of intervention safety and effectiveness.

Background Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of permanent blindness worldwide. The current mainstay of treatment for neovascular AMD (nAMD) is intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents: aflibercept, ranibizumab, and off-label bevacizumab. Injections can be given monthly, every two or three months ('extended-fixed'), or as needed (pro re nata (PRN)). A variant of PRN is 'treat-and-extend' whereby injections are resumed if recurrence is detected and then delivered with increasing intervals. Currently, injection frequency varies among practitioners, which underscores the need to characterize an optimized approach to nAMD management. Objectives To investigate the effects of monthly versus non-monthly intravitreous injection of an anti-VEGF agent in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers from 2004 to October 2019; checked references; handsearched conference abstracts; and contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different treatment regimens for anti-VEGF agents in people with newly diagnosed nAMD. We considered standard doses only (ranibizumab 0.5 mg, bevacizumab 1.25 mg, aflibercept 2.0 mg, or a combination of these). Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, and analysis. Main results We included 15 RCTs. The total number of participants was 7732, ranging from 37 to 2457 in each trial. The trials were conducted worldwide. Of these, six trials exclusively took place in the US, and three included centers from more than one country. Eight trials were at high risk of bias for at least one domain and all trials had at least one domain at unclear risk of bias. Seven trials (3525 participants) compared a PRN regimen with a monthly injection regimen, of which five trials delivered four to eight injections using standard PRN and three delivered nine or 10 injections using a treat-and-extend regimen in the first year. The overall mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at one year was +8.8 letters in the monthly injection group. Compared to the monthly injection, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the mean difference (MD) in BCVA change at one year for the standard PRN subgroup was -1.7 letters (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.8 to -0.6; 4 trials, 2299 participants), favoring monthly injections. There was low-certainty evidence of a similar BCVA change with the treat-and-extend subgroup (0.5 letters, 95% CI -3.1 to 4.2; 3 trials, 1226 participants). Compared to monthly injection, there was low-certainty evidence that fewer participants gained 15 or more lines of vision with standard PRN treatment at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99; 4 trials, 2299 participants) and low-certainty evidence of a similar gain with treat-and-extend versus monthly regimens (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36; 3 trials, 1169 participants). The mean change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of -166 μm in the monthly injection group; the MD compared with standard PRN was 21 μm (95% CI 6 to 32; 4 trials, 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and with treat-and extend was 22 μm (95% CI 37 to -81 μm; 2 trials, 635 participants; low-certainty evidence), in favor of monthly injection. Only one trial (498 participants) measured quality of life and reported no evidence of a difference between regimens, but data could not be extracted (low-certainty evidence). Both PRN regimens (standard and 'treat-and-extend') used fewer injections than monthly regimens (standard PRN: MD -4.6 injections, 95% CI -5.4 to -3.8; 4 trials, 2336 participants; treat-and-extend: -2.4 injections, 95% CI -2.7 to -2.1 injections; moderate-certainty evidence for both comparisons). Two trials provided cost data (1105 participants, trials conducted in the US and the UK). They found that cost differences between regimens were reduced if bevacizumab rather than aflibercept or ranibizumab were used, since bevacizumab was less costly (low-certainty evidence). PRN regimens were associated with a reduced risk of endophthalmitis compared with monthly injections (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.46; 6 RCTs, 3175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using data from all trials included in this review, we estimated the risk of endophthalmitis with monthly injections to be 8 in every 1000 people per year. The corresponding risk for people receiving PRN regimens was 1 in every 1000 people per year (95% CI 0 to 4). Three trials (1439 participants) compared an extended-fixed regimen (number of injections reported in only one large trial: 7.5 in one year) with monthly injections. There was moderate-certainty evidence that BCVA at one year was similar for extended-fixed and monthly injections (MD in BCVA change compared to extended-fixed group: -1.3 letters, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.3; RR of gaining 15 letters or more: 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10). The change in central retinal thickness was a decrease of 137 μm in the monthly group; the MD with the extended-fixed group was 8 μm (95% CI -11 to 27; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of endophthalmitis was lower in the extended-fixed regimen compared to the monthly group, but this estimate was imprecise (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). If we assumed a risk of 8 cases of endophthalmitis in 1000 people receiving monthly injections over one year, then the corresponding risk with extended-fixed regimen was 2 in 1000 people (95% CI 0 to 9). Other evidence comparing different extended-fixed or PRN regimens yielded inconclusive results. Authors' conclusions We found that, at one year, monthly regimens are probably more effective than PRN regimens using seven or eight injections in the first year, but the difference is small and clinically insignificant. Endophthalmitis is probably more common with monthly injections and differences in costs between regimens are higher if aflibercept or ranibizumab are used compared to bevacizumab. This evidence only applies to settings in which regimens are implemented as described in the trials, whereas undertreatment is likely to be common in real-world settings. There are no data from RCTs on long-term effects of different treatment regimens.

BACKGROUND: Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements, involving omega-3 and/or omega-6 components, have been proposed as a therapy for dry eye. Omega-3 PUFAs exist in both short- (alpha-linolenic acid [ALA]) and long-chain (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) forms, which largely derive from certain plant- and marine-based foods respectively. Omega-6 PUFAs are present in some vegetable oils, meats, and other animal products. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements on dry eye signs and symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, two other databases and three trial registries were searched in February 2018, together with reference checking. A top-up search was conducted in October 2019, but the results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving dry eye participants, in which omega-3 and/or omega-6 supplements were compared with a placebo/control supplement, artificial tears, or no treatment. We included head-to-head trials comparing different forms or doses of PUFAs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs, involving 4314 adult participants from 13 countries with dry eye of variable severity and etiology. Follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Nine (26.5%) studies had published protocols and/or were registered. Over half of studies had high risk of bias in one or more domains. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus placebo or no treatment (10 RCTs) We found low certainty evidence that there may be little to no reduction in dry eye symptoms with long-chain omega-3 versus placebo (four studies, 677 participants; mean difference [MD] -2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.14 to 0.19 units). We found moderate certainty evidence for a probable benefit of long-chain omega-3 supplements in increasing aqueous tear production relative to placebo (six studies, 1704 participants; MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.09 mm/5 min using the Schirmer test), although we did not judge this difference to be clinically meaningful. We found low certainty evidence for a possible reduction in tear osmolarity (one study, 54 participants; MD -17.71, 95% CI -28.07 to -7.35 mOsmol/L). Heterogeneity was too substantial to pool data on tear break-up time (TBUT) and adverse effects. Combined omega-3 and omega-6 versus placebo (four RCTs) For symptoms (low certainty) and ocular surface staining (moderate certainty), data from the four included trials could not be meta-analyzed, and thus effects on these outcomes were unclear. For the Schirmer test, we found moderate certainty evidence that there was no intergroup difference (four studies, 455 participants; MD: 0.66, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.77 mm/5 min). There was moderate certainty for a probable improvement in TBUT with the PUFA intervention relative to placebo (four studies, 455 participants; MD 0.55, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.07 seconds). Effects on tear osmolarity and adverse events were unclear, with data only available from a single small study for each outcome. Omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (two RCTs) For omega-3 plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone, we found low certainty evidence suggesting an intergroup difference in symptoms favoring the omega-3 group (two studies, 70 participants; MD -7.16, 95% CI -13.97 to -0.34 OSDI units). Data could not be combined for all other outcomes. Long-chain omega-3 (EPA and DHA) versus omega-6 (five RCTs) For long-chain omega-3 versus omega-6 supplementation, we found moderate certainty evidence for a probable improvement in dry eye symptoms (two studies, 130 participants; MD -11.88, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.92 OSDI units). Meta-analysis was not possible for outcomes relating to ocular surface staining, Schirmer test or TBUT. We found low certainty evidence for a potential improvement in tear osmolarity (one study, 105 participants; MD -11.10, 95% CI -12.15 to -10.05 mOsmol/L). There was low level certainty regarding any potential effect on gastrointestinal side effects (two studies, 91 participants; RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.35 to 15.54). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings in this review suggest a possible role for long-chain omega-3 supplementation in managing dry eye disease, although the evidence is uncertain and inconsistent. A core outcome set would work toward improving the consistency of reporting and the capacity to synthesize evidence.

Importance Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome. Objective To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases. Data Source The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database. Study Selection In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combiningeyesandvisionkeywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter. Data Extraction and Synthesis The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met. Main Outcomes and Measures The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability. Results This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs. Conclusions and Relevance One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Background Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber (the space between the cornea and iris) subsequent to a blow or a projectile striking the eye. Hyphema uncommonly causes permanent loss of vision. Associated trauma (e.g. corneal staining, traumatic cataract, angle recession glaucoma, optic atrophy, etc.) may seriously affect vision. Such complications can lead to permanent impairment of vision. People with sickle cell trait/disease may be particularly susceptible to increases of elevated intraocular pressure. If rebleeding occurs, the rates and severity of complications increase. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase.com; PubMed (1948 to June 2018); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 28 June 2018. Selection criteria Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. In this review, we included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical (non-surgical) interventions versus other medical intervention or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed-globe trauma. We applied no restrictions regarding age, gender, severity of the closed-globe trauma, or level of visual acuity at the time of enrollment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted the data for the primary outcomes, visual acuity and time to resolution of primary hemorrhage, and secondary outcomes including: secondary hemorrhage and time to rebleed; risk of corneal blood staining, glaucoma or elevated intraocular pressure, optic atrophy, or peripheral anterior synechiae; adverse events; and duration of hospitalization. We entered and analyzed data using Review Manager 5. We performed meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD). Main results We included 20 randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with a total of 2643 participants. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (systemic and topical aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, traditional Chinese medicine, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest.We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity for any intervention, whether measured within two weeks (short term) or for longer periods. In a meta-analysis of two trials, we found no evidence of an effect of aminocaproic acid on long-term visual acuity (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.29) or final visual acuity measured up to three years after the hyphema (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18). Eight trials evaluated the effects of various interventions on short-term visual acuity; none of these interventions was measured in more than one trial. No intervention showed a statistically significant effect (RRs ranged from 0.75 to 1.10). Similarly, visual acuity measured for longer periods in four trials evaluating different interventions was also not statistically significant (RRs ranged from 0.82 to 1.02). The evidence supporting these findings was of low or very low certainty.Systemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60) as assessed in six trials with 330 participants. A sensitivity analysis omitting two studies not using an intention-to-treat analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.08). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10) in two studies with 121 participants. We assessed the certainty of these findings as low and very low, respectively. Systemic tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55) in five trials with 578 participants, as did aminomethylbenzoic acid as reported in one study (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41). The evidence to support an associated reduction in the risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e. corneal blood staining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compared with placebo. We found no evidence of an effect in the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose. The number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of systemic aminocaproic acid compared with no use, but this outcome was not altered by any other intervention.The available evidence on usage of systemic or topical corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials.We found no evidence of an effect between a single versus binocular patch or ambulation versus complete bed rest on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. Authors' conclusions We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity by any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although evidence was limited, it appears that people with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhaging. However, hyphema took longer clear in people treated with systemic aminocaproic acid.There is no good evidence to support the use of antifibrinolytic agents in the management of traumatic hyphema other than possibly to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the use of corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or non-drug interventions (such as binocular patching, bed rest, or head elevation) in the management of traumatic hyphema. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.

Importance Identifying and prioritizing unanswered clinical questions may help to best allocate limited resources for research associated with the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Objective To identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes for research associated with the treatment of AMD through engagement with professional and patient stakeholders. Design, Setting, and Participants Multiple cross-sectional survey questions were used in a modified Delphi process for panel members of US and international organizations, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Retina/Vitreous Panel (n=7), health care professionals from the American Society of Retinal Specialists (ASRS) (n=90), Atlantic Coast Retina Conference (ACRC) and Macula 2017 meeting (n=34); and patients from MD (Macular Degeneration) Support (n=46). Data were collected from January 20, 2015, to January 9, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures The prioritizing of clinical questions and patient-important outcomes for AMD. Results Seventy clinical questions were derived from the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns for AMD and suggestions by the AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel. The AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel assessed all 70 clinical questions and rated 17 of 70 questions (24%) as highly important. Health care professionals assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated 12 of 17 questions (71%) as high priority for research to answer; 9 of 12 high-priority clinical questions were associated with aspects of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Patients assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated all as high priority. Additionally, patients identified 6 of 33 outcomes (18%) as most important to them (choroidal neovascularization, development of advanced AMD, retinal hemorrhage, gain of vision, slowing vision loss, and serious ocular events). Conclusions and Relevance Input from 4 stakeholder groups suggests good agreement on which 12 priority clinical questions can be used to underpin research related to the treatment of AMD. The 6 most important outcomes identified by patients were balanced between intended effects of AMD treatment (eg, slowing vision loss) and adverse events. Consideration of these patient-important outcomes may help to guide clinical care and future areas of research.

Purpose The purpose of this focused review was to explore the etiologies of corneal blindness worldwide and compare them with the indications and type of keratoplasties (eg, full-thickness penetrating keratoplasty, anterior lamellar keratoplasty, or endothelial keratoplasty) performed. Methods A literature search of the articles published in the top 10 journals (based on the Altmetrics score) relevant to corneal transplantation within the past 20 years was performed to determine how the focus within corneal transplantation has changed over time. These data were compared with the prevalence and etiology of corneal blindness in each respective region worldwide. Results The leading etiologies of corneal blindness worldwide are primarily due to anterior corneal pathology with a normal endothelium, and the prevalence is highest in developing countries. In addition, the number and type of corneal transplantations performed globally indicate that current practices are disproportionately skewed in favor of endothelial keratoplasty, which is targeted for the pathology prevalent in developed countries. Despite the large number of individuals who would benefit from anterior lamellar keratoplasty, this technique seems to be infrequently performed. Conclusions Most corneal blindness worldwide is secondary to anterior corneal pathology because of infections and trauma. However, this does not align with the current trends and practices in the field of corneal transplantation. We discuss potential solutions to address the current leading causes of global corneal blindness, including increasing the number of anterior lamellar keratoplasties performed, using long-term preserved corneas by trained surgeons, and improving eye bank handling and distribution of procured tissues.

Purpose To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as ‘trials’) of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.

Background Glaucoma is a chronic optic neuropathy characterized by retinal ganglion cell death resulting in damage to the optic nerve head and the retinal nerve fiber layer. Pigment dispersion syndrome is characterized by a structural disturbance in the iris pigment epithelium (the densely pigmented posterior surface of the iris) that leads to dispersion of the pigment and its deposition on various structures within the eye. Pigmentary glaucoma is a specific form of open-angle glaucoma found in patients with pigment dispersion syndrome. Topcial medical therapy is usually the first-line treatment; however, peripheral laser iridotomy has been proposed as an alternate treatment. Peripheral laser iridotomy involves creating an opening in the iris tissue to allow drainage of fluid from the posterior chamber to the anterior chamber and vice versa. Equalizing the pressure within the eye may help to alleviate the friction that leads to pigment dispersion and prevent visual field deterioration. However, the effectiveness of peripheral laser iridotomy in reducing the development or progression of pigmentary glaucoma is unknown. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of peripheral laser iridotomy compared with other interventions, including medication, trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy, or no treatment, for pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma. Search methods We searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE and clinical trials websites such as (mRCT) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 November 2015. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared peripheral laser iridotomy versus no treatment or other treatments for pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures for systematic reviews. Two review authors independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. We did not perform a meta-analysis because of variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for primary and secondary outcomes of interest. Main results We included five RCTs (260 eyes of 195 participants) comparing yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser iridotomy versus no laser iridotomy. Three trials included participants with pigmentary glaucoma at baseline, and two trials enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome. Only two trials reported the country of enrollment: one - Italy, the other - United Kingdom. Overall, we assessed trials as having high or unclear risk of bias owing to incomplete or missing data and selective outcome reporting. Data on visual fields were available for one of three trials that included participants with pigmentary glaucoma at baseline. At an average follow-up of 28 months, the risk of progression of visual field damage was uncertain when comparing laser iridotomy with no iridotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.16 to 6.25; 32 eyes; very low-quality evidence). The two trials that enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome at baseline reported the proportion of participants with onset of glaucomatous visual field changes during the study period. At three-year follow-up, one trial reported that the risk ratio for conversion to glaucoma was 2.72 (95% CI 0.76 to 9.68; 42 eyes; very low-quality evidence). At 10-year follow-up, the other trial reported that no eye showed visual field progression. One trial reported the mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes with pigmentary glaucoma: At an average of nine months of follow-up, the mean difference in IOP between groups was 2.69 mmHg less in the laser iridotomy group than in the control group (95% CI -6.05 to 0.67; 14 eyes; very low-quality evidence). This trial also reported the mean change in anterior chamber depth at an average of nine months of follow-up and reported no meaningful differences between groups (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.15; 14 eyes; very low-quality evidence). No other trial reported mean change in anterior chamber depth. Two trials reported greater flattening of iris configuration in the laser iridotomy group than in the control group among eyes with pigmentary glaucoma; however, investigators provided insufficient data for analysis. No trial reported data related to mean visual acuity, aqueous melanin granules, costs, or quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed the need for additional treatment for control of IOP. One trial that enrolled participants with pigmentary glaucoma reported that more eyes in the laser iridotomy group required additional treatment between six and 23 months of follow-up than eyes in the control group (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.75; 46 eyes); however, the other trial enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome and indicated that the difference between groups at three-year follow-up was uncertain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; 105 eyes). We graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low. Two trials reported that no serious adverse events were observed in either group among eyes with pigment dispersion syndrome. Mild adverse events included postoperative inflammation; two participants required cataract surgery (at 18 and 34 months after baseline), and two participants required a repeat iridotomy. Authors' conclusions We found insufficient evidence of high quality on the effectiveness of peripheral iridotomy for pigmentary glaucoma or pigment dispersion syndrome. Although adverse events associated with peripheral iridotomy may be minimal, the long-term effects on visual function and other patient-important outcomes have not been established. Future research on this topic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients and the optimal timing of treatment in the disease process (eg, pigment dispersion syndrome with normal IOP, pigment dispersion syndrome with established ocular hypertension, pigmentary glaucoma).

Importance Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP). Objective To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings. Results From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines?High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines.Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation.Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps.For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

To compare repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) with Boston type I keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation for full-thickness donor corneal graft failure.Previous donor graft failure is a common indication for both PK and KPro implantation. Selection of the surgical procedure is entirely dependent on the surgeon because there are no studies available for guidance. Therefore, a systematic review was undertaken to examine vision, device retention, graft clarity, and postoperative glaucoma and infection outcomes after repeat PK versus KPro implantation.Articles with data regarding repeat PK published between 1990 and 2014 were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and were reviewed. Results were compared with a retrospective review of consecutive, nonrandomized, longitudinal case series of KPro implantations performed at 5 tertiary care centers in the United States. Visual acuity at 2 years was the primary outcome measure. The proportion of clear grafts in the repeat PK group, device retention in the KPro group, and the development of postoperative glaucoma and infection were secondary outcome measures.The search strategy identified 17 128 articles in the PK analysis. After screening, 26 studies (21 case series and 5 cohort studies) were included in the review. Pooled analysis of the 26 unique studies demonstrated a 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-56%) likelihood of maintaining 20/200 or better at 2 years after repeat PK, compared with an 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) probability with KPro implantation. The probability of maintaining a clear graft at 5 years was 47% (95% CI, 40%-54%) after repeat PK, whereas the probability of retention of the KPro at 5 years was 75% (95% CI, 64%-84%). The rate of progression of glaucoma at 3 years was 25% (95% CI, 10%-44%) after repeat PK and 30% in the KPro cohort.These results demonstrate favorable outcomes of KPro surgery for donor corneal graft failure with a greater likelihood of maintaining visual improvement without higher risk of postoperative glaucoma compared with repeat donor PK.

Background Acanthamoeba are microscopic, free-living, single-celled organisms which can infect the eye and lead to Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK). AK can result in loss of vision in the infected eye or loss of eye itself; however, there are no formal guidelines or standards of care for the treatment of AK. Objectives To evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), PubMed (1948 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 January 2015. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for AK, regardless of the participants’ age, sex, or etiology of disease. We included studies that compared either anti-amoeba therapy (drugs used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) with no anti-amoeba therapy or one anti-amoeba therapy with another anti-amoeba therapy. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened search results and full-text reports, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. We used standard methodological procedures as set forth by the Cochrane Collaboration. Main results We included one RCT (56 eyes of 55 participants) in this review. The study compared two types of topical biguanides for the treatment of AK: chlorhexidine 0.02% and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) 0.02%. All participants were contact lens wearers with a median age of 31 years. Treatment duration ranged from 51 to 145 days. The study, conducted in the UK, was well-designed and had low risk of bias overall. Outcome data were available for 51 (91%) of 56 eyes. Follow-up times for outcome measurements in the study were not reported. Resolution of infection, defined as control of ocular inflammation, relief of pain and photosensitivity, and recovery of vision, was 86% in the chlorhexidine group compared with 78% in the PHMB group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.84 to 1.42). In the chlorhexidine group, 20 of 28 eyes (71%) had better visual acuity compared with 13 of 23 eyes (57%) in the PHMB group at final follow-up (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.94). Five participants required therapeutic keratoplasty: 2 in the chlorhexidine group compared with 3 in the PHMB group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00). No serious adverse event related to drug toxicity was observed in the study. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. Results from the one included study yielded no difference with respect to outcomes reported between chlorhexidine and PHMB. However, the sample size was inadequate to detect clinically meaningful differences between the two groups as indicated by the wide confidence intervals of effect estimates.

Individuals who have failed one or more full thickness penetrating keratoplasties (PKs) may be offered repeat corneal surgery using an artificial or donor cornea. An artificial or prosthetic cornea is known as a keratoprosthesis. Both donor and artificial corneal transplantations involve removal of the diseased and opaque recipient cornea (or the previously failed cornea) and replacement with another donor or prosthetic cornea.To assess the effectiveness of artificial versus donor corneas in individuals who have had one or more failed donor corneal transplantations.We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to November 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 27 November 2013.Two review authors independently assessed reports from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). We resolved discrepancies by discussion or consultation with a third review author.For discussion purposes, we assessed findings from observational cohort studies and non-comparative case series. No data synthesis was performed.We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs comparing artificial corneas with donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantations.The optimal management for those individuals who have failed a conventional corneal transplantation is not known. Currently, in some centers, artificial corneal devices routinely are recommended after just one graft failure, and in others, not until after multiple graft failures, or not at all. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the visual outcomes and complications of artificial corneal devices (particularly the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis which is the most commonly implanted artificial corneal device) with repeat donor corneal transplantation, in order to guide surgeons and their patients. It is apparent that such a trial is needed and would offer significant benefit to an ever-increasing pool of people with visual disability due to corneal opacification, most of whom are still in productive stages of their lives.

Importance Suboptimal overlap in outcomes reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews compromises efforts to compare and summarize results across these studies. Objectives To examine the most frequent outcomes used in trials and reviews of the 4 most prevalent eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and glaucoma) and the overlap between outcomes in the reviews and the trials included in the reviews. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study examined all Cochrane reviews that addressed AMD, cataract, DR, and glaucoma; were published as of July 20, 2016; and included at least 1 trial and the trials included in the reviews. For each disease, a pair of clinical experts independently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies. Outcomes (outcome domains) were then compared separately for each disease. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of review outcomes also reported in trials and vice versa. Results This study included 56 reviews that comprised 414 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial and per review was the same (n = 5) for each disease, the trials included a greater number of outcomes overall than did the reviews, ranging from 2.9 times greater (89 vs 30 outcomes for glaucoma) to 4.9 times greater (107 vs 22 outcomes for AMD). Most review outcomes, ranging from 14 of 19 outcomes (73.7%) (for DR) to 27 of 29 outcomes (93.1%) (for cataract), were also reported in the trials. For trial outcomes, however, the proportion also named in reviews was low, ranging from 19 of 107 outcomes (17.8%) (for AMD) to 24 of 89 outcomes (27.0%) (for glaucoma). Only 1 outcome (visual acuity) was consistently reported in greater than half the trials and greater than half the reviews. Conclusions and Relevance Although most review outcomes were reported in the trials, most trial outcomes were not reported in the reviews. The current analysis focused on outcome domains, which might underestimate the problem of inconsistent outcomes. Other important elements of an outcome (ie, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points) might have differed even though the domains overlapped. Inconsistency in trial outcomes may impede research synthesis and indicates the need for disease-specific core outcome sets in ophthalmology.

Background Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness in elderly populations of industrialised countries. Bevacizumab (Avastin®) and ranibizumab (Lucentis®) are targeted biological drugs (a monoclonal antibody) that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor, an angiogenic cytokine that promotes vascular leakage and growth, thereby preventing its pathological angiogenesis. Ranibizumab is approved for intravitreal use to treat neovascular AMD, while bevacizumab is approved for intravenous use as a cancer therapy. However, due to the biological similarity of the two drugs, bevacizumab is widely used off-label to treat neovascular AMD. Objectives To assess the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (brand name Avastin®; Genentech/Roche) compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (brand name Lucentis®; Novartis/Genentech) in people with neovascular AMD. Primary outcomes were death and All serious systemic adverse events (All SSAEs), the latter as a composite outcome in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Secondary outcomes examined specific SSAEs: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, strokes, arteriothrombotic events, serious infections, and events grouped in some Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Classes (MedDRA SOC). We assessed the safety at the longest available follow-up to a maximum of two years. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other online databases up to 27 March 2014. We also searched abstracts and clinical study presentations at meetings, trial registries, and contacted authors of included studies when we had questions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) and ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in people with neovascular AMD, regardless of publication status, drug dose, treatment regimen, or follow-up length, and whether the SSAEs of interest were reported in the trial report. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias for each study. Three authors independently extracted data. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses for the primary and secondary outcomes. We planned a pre-specified analysis to explore deaths and All SSAEs at the one-year follow-up. Main results We included data from nine studies (3665 participants), including six published (2745 participants) and three unpublished (920 participants) RCTs, none supported by industry. Three studies excluded participants at high cardiovascular risk, increasing clinical heterogeneity among studies. The studies were well designed, and we did not downgrade the quality of the evidence for any of the outcomes due to risk of bias. Although the estimated effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab on our outcomes were similar, we downgraded the quality of the evidence due to imprecision. At the maximum follow-up (one or two years), the estimated risk ratio (RR) of death with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.57, P value = 0.59; eight studies, 3338 participants; moderate quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of death with ranibizumab of 3.4% and with bevacizumab of 3.7% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%). For All SSAEs, the estimated RR was 1.08 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.31, P value = 0.41; nine studies, 3665 participants; low quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of SSAEs of 22.2% with ranibizumab and with bevacizumab of 24% (95% CI 20% to 29.1%). For the secondary outcomes, we could not detect any difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders MedDRA SOC where there was a higher risk with bevacizumab (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.19, P value = 0.04; six studies, 3190 participants). Pre-specified analyses of deaths and All SSAEs at one-year follow-up did not substantially alter the findings of our review. Fixed-effect analysis for deaths did not substantially alter the findings of our review, but fixed-effect analysis of All SSAEs showed an increased risk for bevacizumab (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, P value = 0.04; nine studies, 3665 participants): the meta-analysis was dominated by a single study (weight = 46.9%). The available evidence was sensitive to the exclusion of CATT or unpublished results. For All SSAEs, the exclusion of CATT moved the overall estimate towards no difference (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, P value = 0.92), while the exclusion of LUCAS yielded a larger RR, with more SSAEs in the bevacizumab group, largely driven by CATT (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, P value = 0.004). The exclusion of all unpublished studies produced a RR of 1.12 for death (95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, P value = 0.53) and a RR of 1.21 for SSAEs (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37, P value = 0.004), indicating a higher risk of SSAEs in those assigned to bevacizumab than ranibizumab. Authors' conclusions This systematic review of non-industry sponsored RCTs could not determine a difference between intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for deaths, All SSAEs, or specific subsets of SSAEs in the first two years of treatment, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders. The current evidence is imprecise and might vary across levels of patient risks, but overall suggests that if a difference exists, it is likely to be small. Health policies for the utilisation of ranibizumab instead of bevacizumab as a routine intervention for neovascular AMD for reasons of systemic safety are not sustained by evidence. The main results and quality of evidence should be verified once all trials are fully published.

Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a relatively common retinal vascular disorder in which macular oedema may develop, with a consequent reduction in visual acuity. Until recently there has been no treatment of proven benefit, but growing evidence supports the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.To investigate the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to CRVO.We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to October 2013), OpenGrey, OpenSIGLE (January 1950 to October 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). There were no language or date restrictions in the electronic search for trials. The electronic databases and clinical trials registers were last searched on 29th October 2013.We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal anti-VEGF agents of any dose or duration to sham injection or no treatment. We focused on studies that included individuals of any age or gender and a minimum of six months follow-up.Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants with a loss of 15 letters or more of BCVA, the mean change from baseline BCVA, the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT), the number and type of complications or adverse outcomes, and the number of additional interventions administered. Where available, we also presented quality of life and economic data.We found six RCTs that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These RCTs included 937 participants and compared outcomes at six months to sham injection for four anti-VEGF agents: aflibercept (VEGF Trap-Eye, Eylea), bevacizumab (Avastin), pegaptanib sodium (Macugen) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Three trials were conducted in Norway, Sweden and the USA, and three trials were multicentre, one including centres in the USA, Canada, India, Israel, Argentina and Columbia, a second including centres in the USA, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain, and a third including centres in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. We performed meta-analysis on three key visual outcomes, using data from up to six trials. High-quality evidence from six trials revealed that participants receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were 2.71 times more likely to gain at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to participants treated with sham injections (risk ratio (RR) 2.71; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.10 to 3.49). High-quality evidence from five trials suggested anti-VEGF treatment was associated with an 80% lower risk of losing at least 15 letters of visual acuity at six months compared to sham injection (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.34). Moderate-quality evidence from three trials (481 participants) revealed that the mean reduction from baseline to six months in central retinal thickness was 267.4 µm (95% CI 211.4 µm to 323.4 µm) greater in participants treated with anti-VEGF than in participants treated with sham. The meta-analyses demonstrate that treatment with anti-VEGF is associated with a clinically meaningful gain in vision at six months. One trial demonstrated sustained benefit at 12 months compared to sham. No significant ocular or systemic safety concerns were identified in this time period.Compared to no treatment, repeated intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents in eyes with CRVO macular oedema improved visual outcomes at six months. All agents were relatively well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects in the short term. Future trials should address the relative efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGF agents and other treatments, including intravitreal corticosteroids, for longer-term outcomes.

Background Cataract formation often occurs in people with uveitis. It is unclear which intraocular lens (IOL) type is optimal for use in cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis. Objectives To summarize the effects of different IOLs on visual acuity, other visual outcomes, and quality of life in people with uveitis. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 14 August 2013. We also performed forward and backward searching using the Science Citation Index and the reference lists of the included studies, respectively, in August 2013. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, or poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) IOLs with or without heparin-surface modification (HSM), with each other, or with no treatment in adults with uveitis, for any indication, undergoing cataract surgery. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors screened the search results and for included studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted study investigators for additional information. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes of interest. Main results We included four RCTs involving 216 participants (range of 2 to 140 participants with uveitic cataract per trial) and comparing up to four types of IOLs. The largest study was an international study with centers in Brazil, Egypt, Finland, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain, and the USA; two studies were conducted in Germany and one in Saudi Arabia. There was substantial heterogeneity with respect to the ages of participants and etiologies of uveitis within and across studies. The length of follow-up among the studies ranged from 1 to 24 months after cataract surgery. The studies were at low risk of selection bias, but two of the four studies did not employ masking and only one study included all randomized participants in the final analyses. The funding source was disclosed by investigators of the largest study (professional society) and not reported by the other three. Due to heterogeneity in lens types evaluated and outcomes reported among the trials, we did not combine data in a meta-analysis. In the largest study (140 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive one of four types of IOLs: hydrophobic acrylic, silicone, HSM PMMA, or unmodified PMMA. Proportions of participants with one or more Snellen lines of visual improvement were similar among the four treatment groups at one year' follow-up: 45 of 48 (94%) in the hydrophobic acrylic IOL group, 39 of 44 (89%) in the silicone IOL group, 18 of 22 (82%) in the HSM PMMA IOL group, and 22 of 26 (85%) in the unmodified PMMA IOL group. When comparing hydrophobic acrylic IOLs with silicone IOLs, the risk ratio (RR) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.20). At one year' follow-up, fewer eyes randomized to hydrophobic acrylic IOLs developed posterior synechiae when compared with eyes receiving silicone IOLs (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79); the effects between these groups were less certain with respect to developing posterior capsule opacification (PCO) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.37), corneal edema (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.12), cystoid macular edema (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.84), or mild IOL decentration (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.22). Two intra-individual studies also compared HSM PMMA IOLs with unmodified PMMA IOLs at three or six months of follow-up. These studies, including a combined total of 16 participants with uveitis, were insufficiently powered to detect differences in outcomes among eyes of people with uveitis randomized to receive HSM PMMA IOLs when compared with fellow eyes receiving unmodified PMMA IOLs. In the fourth study (60 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive a hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOL. At three months, there were no statistical or clinical differences between hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOL types in the proportions of participants with two or more Snellen lines of visual improvement (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22). There were similar rates in the development of PCO between hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOLs at six months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25). The effect of the lenses on posterior synechiae was uncertain at six months' follow-up (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22). None of the included studies reported quality of life outcomes. Authors' conclusions Based on the trials identified in this review, there is uncertainty as to which type of IOL provides the best visual and clinical outcomes in people with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery. The studies were small, not all lens materials were compared in all studies, and not all lens materials were available in all study sites. Evidence of a superior effect of hydrophobic acrylic lenses over silicone lenses, specifically for posterior synechiae outcomes comes from a single study at a high risk of performance and detection bias. However, due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity in outcome reporting, we found insufficient information to assess these and other types of IOL materials for cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.

Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior or posterior (or both) chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially vision-threatening complication of cataract surgery. Prophylactic measures for endophthalmitis are targeted against various sources of infection.To evaluate the effects of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery compared with no prophylaxis or other form of prophylaxis.We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-ProcessOther Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to December 2016),the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 December 2016. We also searched for additional studies that cited any included trials using the Science Citation Index.We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults undergoing cataract surgery (any method and incision type) for lens opacities due to any origin. We included trials that evaluated preoperative antibiotics, intraoperative (intracameral, subconjunctival or systemic), or postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for acute endophthalmitis. We excluded studies that evaluated antiseptic preoperative preparations using agents such as povidone iodine or antibiotics for treating acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias for each included study, and abstracted data.Five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, including 101,005 adults and 132 endophthalmitis cases. While the sample size was very large, the heterogeneity of the study designs and modes of antibiotic delivery made it impossible to conduct a formal meta-analysis. Interventions investigated included the utility of adding vancomycin and gentamycin to the irrigating solution compared with standard balanced saline solution irrigation alone, use of intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin perioperatively, periocular penicillin injections and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine drops compared with topical antibiotics alone, and mode of antibiotic delivery (subconjunctival versus retrobulbar injections; fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone). The risk of bias among studies was low to unclear due to information not being reported. We identified one ongoing study.Two studies compared any antibiotic with no antibiotic. One study, which compared irrigation with antibiotics in balanced salt solution (BSS) versus BSS alone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin (risk ratio (RR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.63; 8106 participants; high-certainty evidence) or using intracameral cefuroxime alone (RR 0.21, CI 0.06 to 0.74; 8110 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared with placebo, and an uncertain effect when using topical levofloxacin alone compared with placebo (RR 0.72, CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining antibiotic injections during surgery and topical antibiotics compared with topical antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.92 (periocular penicillin and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine; 6618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.91 (intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin; 8101 participants; high-certainty evidence)).One study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). Another study found no evidence of a difference in endophthalmitis when comparing subconjunctival versus retrobulbar antibiotic injections (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.32; 77,015 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies reported any visual acuity outcome; one study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, reported only that mean visual acuity was the same for both groups at 20 days postoperation. In the other study, the difference in the proportion of eyes with final visual acuity greater than 20/40 following endophthalmitis between groups receiving intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin compared with no intracameral cefuroxime was uncertain (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Only one study reported adverse events (1 of 129 eyes had pupillary membrane in front of the intraocular lens and 8 eyes showed posterior capsule opacity). No study reported outcomes related to quality of life or economic outcomes.Multiple measures for preventing endophthalmitis following cataract surgery have been studied. High-certainty evidence shows that injection with cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin lowers the chance of endophthalmitis after surgery, and there is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that using antibiotic eye drops in addition to antibiotic injection probably lowers the chance of endophthalmitis compared with using injections or eye drops alone. Clinical trials with rare outcomes require very large sample sizes and are quite costly to conduct; thus, it is unlikely that many additional clinical trials will be conducted to evaluate currently available prophylaxis. Practitioners should rely on current evidence to make informed decisions regarding prophylaxis choices.

Background Hordeolum is a common, painful, inflammation of the eyelid margin that is usually caused by bacterial infection. The infection affects oil glands of the eyelid and can be internal or external. In many cases, the lesion drains spontaneously and resolves untreated; however, the inflammation can spread to other ocular glands or tissues and recurrences are common. If unresolved, acute internal hordeolum can become chronic or develop into a chalazion. External hordeola, also known as styes, were not included in the scope of this review. Objectives The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical treatments for acute internal hordeolum compared to observation or placebo. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1950 to June 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to June 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 21 June 2010. Selection criteria The selection criteria for this review included randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials of patients diagnosed with acute internal hordeolum. Studies of patients with external hordeolum (stye), chronic hordeolum or chalazion were excluded. Non-surgical interventions of interest included the use of hot or warm compresses, lid scrubs, antibiotics, or steroids compared to observation, placebo, or other active interventions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the references identified by the electronic searches for inclusion in this review. No relevant studies were found. The reasons for exclusion were documented. Main results There were no trials identified for inclusion in this review. The majority of the references identified from our search reported on external hordeola or chronic internal hordeola. The few references specific to acute internal hordeolum reported mostly recommendations for treatment or were reports of interventional case series, case studies, or other types of observational study designs and were published over 20 years ago. Authors' conclusions We did not find any evidence for or against the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for the treatment of hordeolum. Controlled clinical trials would be useful in determining which interventions are effective for the treatment of acute internal hordeolum.

Background Blepharitis, an inflammatory condition associated with itchiness, redness, flaking, and crusting of the eyelids, is a common eye condition that affects both children and adults. It is common in all ethnic groups and across all ages. Although infrequent, blepharitis can lead to permanent alterations to the eyelid margin or vision loss from superficial keratopathy (abnormality of the cornea), corneal neovascularization, and ulceration. Most importantly, blepharitis frequently causes significant ocular symptoms such as burning sensation, irritation, tearing, and red eyes as well as visual problems such as photophobia and blurred vision. The exact etiopathogenesis is unknown, but suspected to be multifactorial, including chronic low-grade infections of the ocular surface with bacteria, infestations with certain parasites such as demodex, and inflammatory skin conditions such as atopy and seborrhea. Blepharitis can be categorized in several different ways. First, categorization is based on the length of disease process: acute or chronic blepharitis. Second, categorization is based on the anatomical location of disease: anterior, or front of the eye (e.g. staphylococcal and seborrheic blepharitis), and posterior, or back of the eye (e.g. meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)). This review focuses on chronic blepharitis and stratifies anterior and posterior blepharitis. Objectives To examine the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of chronic blepharitis. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We searched the reference lists of included studies for any additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 February 2012. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (CCTs) in which participants were adults aged 16 years or older and clinically diagnosed with chronic blepharitis. We also included trials where participants with chronic blepharitis were a subset of the participants included in the study and data were reported separately for these participants. Interventions within the scope of this review included medical treatment and lid hygiene measures. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were meta-analyzed for studies comparing similar interventions and reporting comparable outcomes with the same timing. Otherwise, results for included studies were summarized in the text. Main results There were 34 studies (2169 participants with blepharitis) included in this review: 20 studies (14 RCTs and 6 CCTs) included 1661 participants with anterior or mixed blepharitis and 14 studies (12 RCTs and 2 CCTs) included 508 participants with posterior blepharitis (MGD). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included studies, with respect to follow-up periods and types of interventions, comparisons, and condition of participants, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. Topical antibiotics were shown to provide some symptomatic relief and were effective in eradicating bacteria from the eyelid margin for anterior blepharitis. Lid hygiene may provide symptomatic relief for anterior and posterior blepharitis. The effectiveness of other treatments for blepharitis, such as topical steroids and oral antibiotics, were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions Despite identifying 34 trials related to treatments for blepharitis, there is no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Commercial products are marketed to consumers and prescribed to patients without substantial evidence of effectiveness. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments. Any RCT designed for this purpose should separate participants by type of condition (e.g. staphylococcal blepharitis or MGD) in order to minimize imbalances between groups (type I errors) and to achieve statistical power for analyses (prevent type II errors). Medical interventions and commercial products should be compared with conventional lid hygiene measures, such as warm compresses and eyelid margin washing, to determine effectiveness, as well as head-to-head to show comparative effectiveness between treatments. Outcomes of interest should be patient-centered and measured using validated questionnaires or scales. It is important that participants be followed long-term, at least one year, to assess chronic outcomes properly.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is practiced widely, and substantial resources are committed to an increasing cataract surgical rate in low‐ and middle‐income countries. With the current volume of cataract surgery and future increases, it is critical to optimize the safety and cost‐effectiveness of this procedure. Most cataracts are performed on older individuals with correspondingly high systemic and ocular comorbidities. It is likely that routine preoperative medical testing will detect medical conditions, but it is questionable whether these conditions should preclude individuals from cataract surgery or change their perioperative management. OBJECTIVES: 1. To investigate the evidence for reductions in adverse events through preoperative medical testing 2. To estimate the average cost of performing routine medical testing SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS BIREME, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (last searched 5 January 2012); ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 29 June 2018, with the exception of mRCT which is no longer in service. We searched the references of reports from included studies for additional relevant studies without restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials in which routine preoperative medical testing was compared to no preoperative or selective preoperative testing prior to age‐related cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed abstracts to identify possible trials for inclusion. For each included study, two review authors independently documented study characteristics, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three randomized clinical trials that compared routine preoperative medical testing versus selective or no preoperative testing for 21,531 cataract surgeries. The largest trial, in which 19,557 surgeries were randomized, was conducted in Canada and the USA. Another study was conducted in Brazil and the third in Italy. Although the studies had some issues with respect to performance and detection bias due to lack of masking (high risk for one study, unclear for two studies), we assessed the studies as at overall low risk of bias. The three randomized clinical trials included in this review reported results for 21,531 total cataract surgeries with 707 total surgery‐associated medical adverse events, including 61 hospitalizations and three deaths. Of the 707 medical adverse events reported, 353 occurred in the pre‐testing group and 354 occurred in the no‐testing group (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; high‐certainty evidence). Most events were cardiovascular and occurred during the intraoperative period. Routine preoperative medical testing did not reduce the risk of intraoperative (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38) or postoperative ocular adverse events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.67) when compared to selective or no testing (2 studies; 2281 cataract surgeries; moderate‐certainty evidence). One study evaluated cost savings, estimating the costs to be 2.55 times higher in those with preoperative medical testing compared to those without preoperative medical testing (1 study; 1005 cataract surgeries; moderate‐certainty evidence). There was no difference in cancellation of surgery between those with preoperative medical testing and those with selective or no preoperative testing, reported by two studies with 20,582 cataract surgeries (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21; high‐certainty evidence). No study reported outcomes related to clinical management changes (other than cancellation) or quality of life scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that routine preoperative testing does not increase the safety of cataract surgery. Alternatives to routine preoperative medical testing have been proposed, including self administered health questionnaires, which could substitute for health provider histories and physical examinations. Such avenues may lead to cost‐effective means of identifying those at increased risk of medical adverse events due to cataract surgery. However, despite the rare occurrence, adverse medical events precipitated by cataract surgery remain a concern because of the large number of elderly patients with multiple medical comorbidities who have cataract surgery in various settings. The studies summarized in this review should assist recommendations for the standard of care of cataract surgery, at least in low‐ and middle‐income settings. Unfortunately, in these settings, medical history questionnaires may be useless to screen for risk because few people have ever been to a physician, let alone been diagnosed with any chronic disease.

Background Cataract and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are common causes of decreased vision that often occur simultaneously in people over age 50. Although cataract surgery is an effective treatment for cataract-induced visual loss, some clinicians suspect that such an intervention may increase the risk of worsening of underlying AMD and thus have deleterious effects on vision. Objectives The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cataract surgery compared with no surgery in eyes with AMD. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 December 2016. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that enrolled participants whose eyes were affected by both cataract and AMD in which cataract surgery was compared with no surgery. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias for included studies, and graded the certainty of evidence. We followed methods as recommended by Cochrane. Main results We included two RCTs with a total of 114 participants (114 study eyes) with visually significant cataract and AMD. We identified no ongoing trials. Participants in each RCT were randomized to immediate cataract surgery (within two weeks of enrollment) or delayed cataract surgery (six months after enrollment). The risk of bias was unclear for most domains in each study; one study was registered prospectively. In one study conducted in Australia outcomes were reported only at six months (before participants in the delayed-surgery group had cataract surgery). At six months, the immediate-surgery group showed mean improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) compared with the delayed-surgery group (mean difference (MD) -0.15 LogMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.02; 56 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the other study, conducted in Austria, outcomes were reported only at 12 months (12 months after participants in the immediate-surgery group and six months after participants in the delayed-surgery group had cataract surgery). There was uncertainty as to which treatment group had better improvement in distance visual acuity at 12 months (unit of measure not reported; very low-certainty evidence). At 12 months, the mean change from baseline between groups in cumulated drusen or geographic atrophy area size was small and there was uncertainty which, if either, of the groups was favored (MD 0.76, 95% CI -8.49 to 10.00; 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). No participant in one study had exudative AMD develop in the study eye during 12 months of follow-up; in the other study, choroidal neovascularization developed in the study eye of 1 of 27 participants in the immediate-surgery group versus 0 of 29 participants in the delayed-surgery group at six months (risk ratio 3.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 75.68; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was measured using two different questionnaires. Scores on the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire suggested that the immediate-surgery group fared better regarding vision-related quality of life than the delayed-surgery group at six months (MD in IVI logit scores 1.60, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.59; low-certainty evidence). However, we could not analyze scores from the Visual Function-14 (VF-14) questionnaire from the other study due to insufficient data. No postoperative complication was reported from either study. Authors' conclusions At this time, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions from the available data as to whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in people with AMD after 12 months. Although cataract surgery provides short-term (six months) improvement in BCVA in eyes with AMD compared with no surgery, it is unclear whether the timing of surgery has an effect on long-term outcomes. Physicians must make recommendations to their AMD patients regarding cataract surgery based on experience and clinical judgment until large controlled trials are conducted and their findings published. There is a need for prospective RCTs in which cataract surgery is compared with no surgery in people with AMD to better evaluate whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in all or a subset of AMD patients. However, ethical considerations preclude withholding surgery, or delaying it for several years, if it may be a potentially beneficial treatment. Designers of future trials are encouraged to utilize existing standardized systems for grading cataract and AMD and for measuring key outcomes: visual acuity, change in visual acuity, worsening of AMD, quality of life measures, and adverse events.

Background: Cruciferous vegetables, rich in isothiocyanates, may protect against lung cancer. Glutathione S-transferases are important in metabolizing isothiocyanates; hence, variants in GST genes may modify the association between cruciferous vegetable intake and lung cancer. We carried out a systematic review to characterize the association between cruciferous vegetable intake and lung cancer risk, with an emphasis on the potential interaction between cruciferous vegetables and GSTM1 and GSTT1 gene variants. Methods: A search of the epidemiologic literature through December 2007 was conducted using 15 bibliographic databases without language restrictions. Thirty studies on the association between lung cancer and either total cruciferous vegetable consumption (6 cohort and 12 case-control studies) or specific cruciferous vegetables (1 cohort and 11 case-control studies) were included. Results: The risk for lung cancer among those in the highest category of total cruciferous vegetable intake was 22% lower in case-control studies [random-effects pooled odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.70-0.88] and 17% lower in cohort studies (pooled relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.08) compared with those in the lowest category of intake. The strongest inverse association of total cruciferous vegetable intake with lung cancer risk was seen among individuals with GSTM1 and GSTT1 double null genotypes (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P for interaction = 0.01). Conclusions: Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetable intake may be weakly and inversely associated with lung cancer risk. Because of a gene-diet interaction, the strongest inverse association was among those with homozygous deletion for GSTM1 and GSTT1. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(1):184–95)