SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of Q-value-guided laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis and standard laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis with topography-guided or asphericity-adjusted derived data: a comparative contralateral eye study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Optimization of Ray-Tracing-Guided LASIK Outcomes: A Prospective Comparative Study of ZZ InnovEyes Strategy versus Automated Strategy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Comparison of objective and subjective visual quality after flapless laser vision correction for mild to moderate myopia: SMILE vs PRK.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Laser-based refractive surgery techniques to treat myopia in adults. An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies examining the safety and efficacy of Q-value-guided laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for treating myopia have yielded inconsistent results. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to clarify this issue
methods: Various databases were conducted up to November 21, 2018. All randomized controlled trials and cohorts that compared Q-value-guided LASIK with standard LASIK were selected. Mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the strength of the correlations. Additionally, different subgroup analyses and publication bias tests were performed. Data were extracted including the number of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, postoperative UCVA, preoperative and postoperative Q-value, postoperative refractive spherical equivalent (SE), the number of postoperative SE within ±0.5D, higher order aberration (HOA), coma-like aberration and spherical-like aberration.
resultsA total of seventeen studies with 2640 patients and 3,358 eyes were included. It has been shown that postoperative Q-value (MD = -0.42; 95% CI: -0.64, -0.21; P < .001), HOA (MD = -0.14; 95% CI: -0.23, -0.06; P = .001), spherical-like aberration (MD = -0.19; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.06; P = .004) rather than postoperative UCVA (MD = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.07; P = .012) were significantly better in the Q-value-guided LASIK than standard LASIK. However, the pooled results revealed that no significant differences were found between the 2 paired groups of postoperative UCVA of 20/20 or better (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.62, 1.92; P = .763), preoperative Q-value (MD = -0.00; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.02; P = .922), postoperative refractive SE (MD = 0.08; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.25; P = .336), coma-like aberration (horizontal: MD = -0.00; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.03; P = .966; vertical: MD = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.01; P = .263) and postoperative SE within ±0.5 D (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.48, 2.33; P = .886). Likewise, similar results were detected in some corresponding subgroups.
conclusionQ-value-guided LASIK is a safe, effective and predictable surgical option for treating myopia, especially showing superiority over standard LASIK in postoperative Q-value, HOA and spherical-like aberration. However, more detailed studies are required to confirm our conclusions in advanced researches.
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.