ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2018
Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of retinal vein occlusion.Eye (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy of optical coherence tomography for diagnosing glaucoma: an overview of systematic reviews.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Objective and subjective evaluation of trifocal diffractive intraocular Lens after cataract extraction with phacoemulsification: a prospective clinical study.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Trial
- Characteristic Manifestations regarding Ultrasound Biomicroscopy Morphological Data in the Diagnosis of Acute Angle Closure Secondary to Lens Subluxation.BioMed research international · 2019Trial
- Stability selection machine learning identifies biomechanical markers for subclinical idiopathic corneal endothelial abnormalities.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.JAMA ophthalmology · 2024Article
- TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.The ocular surface · 2023Article
- A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology.Frontiers in 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
- All India Ophthalmological Society (AIOS) Task Force guidelines to prevent intraocular infections and cluster outbreaks after cataract surgery.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Exploring the Protective Effect and Mechanism ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Does Ophthalmology Need Philosophy?Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Iatrogenic Dry Eye Disease: Dealing with the Conundrum of Post-Cataract Discomfort. A P.I.C.A.S.S.O. Board Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2021Review
- Efficacy and Safety of TangWang Prescription for Type 2 Non-Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP). Objective: To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings. Results: From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance: The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.
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.