Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27367803›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) versus Femtosecond Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zeren Shen, Keda Shi, Yinhui Yu, Xiaoning Yu, Yuchen Lin, Ke Yao

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hyperopic keratorefractive lenticule extraction.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Refractive Surgery in Myopic Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zeren ShenEye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Keda ShiDepartment of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yinhui YuEye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Xiaoning YuEye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yuchen LinEye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Ke YaoEye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe goal of this study was to compare small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) with femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for treating myopia.

methodsThe CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed databases and a Chinese database (SinoMed) were searched in May of 2016. Twelve studies with 1,076 eyes, which included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine cohorts, met our inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group framework. Data were extracted and analysed at three to six months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included a loss of one or more lines of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, mean logMAR UCVA, postoperative mean spherical equivalent (SE) and postoperative refraction within ±1.0 D of the target refraction. Secondary outcome measures included ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear breakup time (TBUT) and Schirmer's 1 test (S1T) as dry eye parameters, along with corneal sensitivity.

resultsThe overall quality of evidence was considered to be low to very low. Pooled results revealed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to a loss of one or more lines in the BSCVA (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 0.81, 3.63; P = 0.16), UCVA of 20/20 or better (OR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.44, 1.15; P = 0.16), logMAR UCVA (MD 0.00; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.04; P = 0.87), postoperative refractive SE (MD -0.00; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.05; P = 0.97) or postoperative refraction within ±1.0 D of the target refraction (OR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.22, 2.77; P = 0.70) within six months postoperatively. The pooled analysis also indicated that the FS-LASIK group suffered more severely from dry eye symptoms (OSDI; MD -6.68; 95% CI: -11.76, -2.00; P = 0.006) and lower corneal sensitivity (MD 12.40; 95% CI: 10.23, 14.56; P < 0.00001) at six months postoperatively.

conclusionsIn conclusion, both FS-LASIK and SMILE are safe, effective and predictable surgical options for treating myopia. However, dry eye symptoms and loss of corneal sensitivity may occur less frequently after SMILE than after FS-LASIK.

Indexed as

HumansKeratomileusis, Laser In SituMyopiaTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27367803
PMCPMC4930219
OpenAlexW2470225248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.