ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Efficacy comparison between manual small incision cataract surgery and phacoemulsification in cataract patients: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSystematic review of manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and phacoemulsification (PHACO) on the postoperative visual quality and surgical complications.
methodsRelevant literatures on clinical efficacy of PHACO and MSICS were included by retrieving in Medline, PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and Chinese Academic Journal (CNKI) databases. Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan5.0 software with OR and its 95% CI for the effect size.
resultsA total of ten documents were included in the study. Uncorrected visual acuity 1 week after surgery (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 1.06, P=0.15), post-operative capsular rupture (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.73~1.58, P=0.72), and corneal edema (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70~1.16, P=0.42) between MSICS and PHACO showed no statistical difference (P > 0.05).
conclusionClinical efficacy and complications of MSICS was similar tothat of PHACO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26309538PMC4538015What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.