Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34291550›Full record

ArticleClinical & experimental ophthalmology2021

How can we improve the quality of cataract services for all? A global scoping review.

Miho Yoshizaki, Jacqueline Ramke, Justine H Zhang, Ada Aghaji, João M Furtado, Helen Burn, Stephen Gichuhi, William H Dean, Nathan Congdon, Matthew J Burton and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Strategies to address inequity of uncorrected refractive error in the Western Pacific: A modified Delphi process.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Aberrant expression ofInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Measuring cataract outcomes.Community eye health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Miho YoshizakiInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jacqueline RamkeInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-1306
Justine H ZhangInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Ada AghajiDepartment of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
João M FurtadoDivision of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Helen BurnDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, United Kingdom.
Stephen GichuhiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
William H DeanInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Nathan CongdonCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
John BuchanInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 207472Wellcome Trust 207472/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCataract is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment globally. Cataract surgery is one of the most frequently performed operations worldwide, but good quality services are not universally available. This scoping review aims to summarise the nature and extent of published literature on interventions to improve the quality of services for age-related cataract globally.

methodsWe used the dimensions of quality adopted by WHO-effectiveness, safety, people-centredness, timeliness, equity, integration and efficiency-to which we added planetary health. On 17 November 2019, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health for manuscripts published since 1990, without language or geographic restrictions. We included studies that reported quality-relevant interventions and excluded studies focused on technical aspects of surgery or that only involved children (younger than 18 years). Screening of titles/abstracts, full-text review and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Studies were grouped thematically and results synthesised narratively.

resultsMost of the 143 included studies were undertaken in high-income countries (n = 93, 65%); 29 intervention groups were identified, most commonly preoperative education (n = 17, 12%) and pain/anxiety management (n = 16, 11%). Efficiency was the quality element most often assessed (n = 58, 41%) followed by people-centredness (n = 40, 28%), while integration (n = 4) and timeliness (n = 3) were infrequently reported, and no study reported outcomes related to planetary health.

conclusionEvidence on interventions to improve quality of cataract services shows unequal regional distribution. There is an urgent need for more evidence relevant to low- and middle-income countries as well as across all quality elements, including planetary health.

Indexed as

CataractCataract ExtractionChildGlobal HealthHumanscataract servicesglobal eye healthqualityuniversal health coverage

Identifiers

PMID34291550
PMCPMC7618289

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.