ArticleOphthalmology2016
Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?
Article in Ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of retinal vein occlusion.Eye (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Assessment of vision-related quality of life and depression in patients with age-related macular degeneration.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Systematic analysis of levels of evidence supporting American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines, 2012-2021.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Current Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Japan: A Systematic Review and Pooled Data Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye.Eye (London, England) · 2019Review
- Article
- Impact of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism on the efficacy of photodynamic therapy in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Questions and Patient-Important Outcomes Associated With the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.JAMA ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye.JAMA ophthalmology · 2018Article
- The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews.BMC ophthalmology · 2017Review
- The Impact of Age-Related Macular Degeneration on Quality of Life and Its Association With Demographic Data: Results From the NEI VFQ-25 Questionnaire in a Norwegian Population.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
- What Do We Really Know about the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaReview
- Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps.Ophthalmology. RetinaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAre existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines?
designHigh-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.
methodsEligible 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsFor 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.