Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28206671›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Surgery for cataracts in people with age-related macular degeneration.

Heather Casparis, Kristina Lindsley, Irene C Kuo, Shameema Sikder, Neil M Bressler

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Surgery for cataracts in people with age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Immunogenetic and Environmental Factors in Age-Related Macular Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Treating patients with geographic atrophy: are we there yet?International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Blue-Light-Blocking Lenses Ameliorate Structural Alterations in the Rodent Hippocampus.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Long-term progression of geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration does the phakic status matter?Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Effects of cataract surgery in Japanese patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather CasparisPrivate practice, Ophthalmology, Via Antonio Ciseri 13, CH-6600 Locarno, Switzerland.
Kristina LindsleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail Room E6132, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21205.
Irene C KuoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 4924 Campbell Blvd #100, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21236.
Shameema SikderWilmer Ophthalmological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe St., Wilmer B-20, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21287.
Neil M BresslerWilmer Ophthalmological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe St., Wilmer B-20, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21287.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness Research & the Cochrane Eyes & Vision GroupU01EY020522 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2010 to 2016
$9.2M
NEI NIH HHS U01 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCataract 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.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cataract surgery compared with no surgery in eyes with AMD. SEARCH

methodsWe 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

resultsWe 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'

conclusionsAt 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.

Indexed as

CataractCataract ExtractionDisease ProgressionHumansMacular DegenerationMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID28206671
PMCPMC5419431
OpenAlexW1923120587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.