Search

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.

Topic To summarize the relative effects of bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA) and ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, Inc.), using findings from a Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group systematic review. Clinical Relevance Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable vision loss among the elderly in developed countries. Bevacizumab and ranibizumab are the most frequently used anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents injected intravitreally to treat NVAMD. Methods For this systematic review, we included only randomized controlled trials in which the 2 anti-VEGF agents had been compared directly. The primary outcome was 1-year gain in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ≥15 letters. We followed Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, and data analyses. Relative effects of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab are presented as estimated risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results We identified 6 eligible randomized controlled trials with 2809 participants. The proportion of eyes that gained ≥15 letters of BCVA by 1 year was similar for the 2 agents when the same regimens were compared (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73–1.11). The mean change in BCVA from baseline also was similar (MD, −0.5 letter; 95% CI, −1.6 to +0.6). Other BCVA and quality of life outcomes were similar for the 2 agents. One-year treatment cost with ranibizumab was 5.1 and 25.5 times the cost for bevacizumab in the 2 largest trials. Ocular adverse events were uncommon ( Conclusions We found no important difference in effectiveness or safety between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD treatment, but there was a large cost difference.

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)

Resumen Antecedentes La cirugia de catarata se practica ampliamente y en los paises en vias de desarrollo se destinan recursos significativos a una tasa creciente de cirugia de catarata. Con la cantidad actual de cirugias de catarata y su incremento en el futuro, es fundamental optimizar la seguridad y la relacion entre costo y efectividad de este procedimiento. La mayoria de las cataratas se realizan en personas mayores que, en consecuencia, presentan altas tasas de comorbilidad sistemica y ocular. Es probable que las pruebas clinicas preoperatorias sistematicas detecten trastornos medicos, sin embargo, es cuestionable si estos trastornos deben excluir a ciertos individuos de la cirugia de catarata o modificar su tratamiento perioperatorio Objetivos (1) Examinar la evidencia sobre la disminucion de los eventos adversos mediante las pruebas clinicas preoperatorias y (2) realizar una estimacion del costo promedio de practicar pruebas clinicas sistematicas. Estrategia de busqueda Se hicieron busquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE y LILACS sin restricciones de fecha o de idioma. Se utilizaron las listas de referencias y el Science Citation Index para buscar estudios adicionales. Criterios de seleccion Se incluyeron los ensayos clinicos aleatorios que compararon pruebas clinicas preoperatorias sistematicas con pruebas preoperatorias selectivas o ninguna prueba preoperatoria antes de la cirugia de catarata senil. Obtencion y analisis de los datos Dos autores de la revision evaluaron de forma independiente los resumenes para identificar posibles ensayos para la inclusion. Dos revisores, de forma independiente, documentaron las caracteristicas del estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron la calidad metodologica de cada uno de los estudios incluidos. Resultados principales Los tres ensayos clinicos aleatorios incluidos en esta revision presentaron los resultados de un total de 21 531 cirugias de catarata, con un total de 707 eventos adversos clinicos asociados con la cirugia, incluidas 61 hospitalizaciones y tres muertes. De los 707 eventos adversos clinicos que se informaron, 353 se produjeron en el grupo de pruebas preoperatorias y 354 en el grupo de ninguna prueba. La mayoria de los eventos fueron cardiovasculares y se produjeron durante el periodo intraoperatorio. Las pruebas clinicas preoperatorias sistematicas no redujeron el riesgo de eventos adversos clinicos intraoperatorios (OR 1,02; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,22) o posoperatorios (OR 0,96; IC del 95%: 0,74 a 1,24) en comparacion con las pruebas selectivas o ninguna prueba. El ahorro en los costos fue evaluado en un estudio, que calculo que los costos eran 2,55 veces mayores en el caso del grupo de pruebas clinicas preoperatorias, en comparacion con el grupo sin pruebas clinicas preoperatorias. Dos estudios informaron que no hubo diferencias en la cancelacion de la cirugia entre los grupos de pruebas clinicas preoperatorias y los de ninguna o limitadas pruebas preoperatorias. Conclusiones de los autores Esta revision indica que las pruebas preoperatorias sistematicas no aumentan la seguridad de la cirugia de catarata. Se han propuesto alternativas a las pruebas clinicas preoperatorias sistematicas, entre ellas, cuestionarios de salud autoadministrados, que para el proveedor de servicios sanitarios podrian sustituir los antecedentes y la exploracion fisica.Tales medidas podrian constituir medios efectivos, en relacion con los costos, para identificar a las personas con mayor riesgo de presentar eventos adversos clinicos por cirugia de catarata. Sin embargo, a pesar de su infrecuente aparicion, los eventos adversos clinicos ocasionados por la cirugia de catarata siguen siendo un motivo de preocupacion, debido al gran numero de pacientes de edad avanzada, con comorbilidades clinicas multiples, que son sometidos a cirugia de catarata en diversos contextos. Los estudios resumidos en esta revision deberian contribuir a las recomendaciones para las normas de atencion de la cirugia de catarata, al menos en contextos de los paises desarrollados. Lamentablemente, en contextos de los paises en vias de desarrollo, los cuestionarios sobre los antecedentes clinicos no serian utiles para detectar el riesgo, ya que pocas personas han concurrido alguna vez al medico y mucho menos han sido diagnosticadas con una enfermedad cronica.