Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35191063›Full record

SynthesisOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022

Identification and critical appraisal of evidence for interventions for refractive error to support the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Jennifer R Evans, John G Lawrenson, Jacqueline Ramke, Gianni Virgili, Iris Gordon, Gareth Lingham, Sumrana Yasmin, Stuart Keel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Jennifer R EvansCentre for Public Health, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6137-2030
John G LawrensonDivision of Optometry and Vision Science, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-6390
Jacqueline RamkeInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-1306
Gianni VirgiliCentre for Public Health, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.
Iris GordonCentre for Public Health, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.
Gareth LinghamCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Lions Eye Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Sumrana YasminSightsavers, Chippenham, UK.
Stuart KeelDepartment of Noncommunicable Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4319-1025
Queen's University Belfast · GBCity, University of London · GBLions Eye Institute · AUSightsavers · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

Department of HealthWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe World Health Organization is developing a Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) to support the integration of eye health care into national health programmes. Interventions included in the PECI should be based on robust evidence where available. Refractive error is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment and is a PECI priority condition. The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence to support the development of the PECI by identifying and critically appraising clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and extracting recommendations for refractive error interventions.

methodsWe searched for CPGs on refractive error published in the last 10 years. We conducted the searches initially in February and March 2019 and repeated them in March 2020. We evaluated the quality of potentially relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

resultsWe identified 12 high-quality CPGs relevant to refractive error, written by six organisations from three high-income countries. Organisations used a variety of frameworks to assess the strength of recommendations based on available evidence, with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) being most common. Vision screening for children aged 3 to 5 years was recommended consistently. Evidence for screening and eye evaluations at other ages was weaker, although ophthalmic professional organisations consistently recommended regular evaluations. Recommendations on optical and laser correction of refractive error were limited and did not consider implications for low resource settings. Interventions for slowing myopia progression in children were recommended, but these will need regular updating as new evidence emerges.

conclusionsCurrent high-quality guidelines on refractive error have been formulated in high-income countries. Recommendations focused on prevention and treatment of refractive error in low-and middle-income countries are lacking. Regular updating of systematic reviews and CPGs is essential to ensure that robust evidence is promptly appraised and incorporated into recommendations for eye health care practitioners.

Indexed as

Refractive ErrorsVision ScreeningChildChild, PreschoolDelivery of Health CareHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicWorld Health Organizationclinical practice guidelinesrefractive error

Identifiers

PMID35191063
PMCPMC9306966
OpenAlexW4212777704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.