ReviewBMC ophthalmology2017
The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews.
Review in BMC ophthalmology, 2017. 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, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of optical coherence tomography for diagnosing glaucoma: an overview of systematic reviews.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Ethical integrity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: challenges, pitfalls, and best practices in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.JAMA ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.The ocular surface · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on open angle glaucoma.Eye (London, England) · 2020Review
- Strengthening the integration of eye care into the health system: methodology for the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2020Article
- 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
- What Do We Really Know about the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.
methodsSystematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.
resultsWe identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.
conclusionsMost systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.
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.