SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Comparative anatomical outcomes of high-flow vs. low-flow phacoemulsification cataract surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. 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.
- Quantitative assessment of ophthalmic viscosurgical device retention during phacoemulsification and aspiration: an ex vivo analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Occlusion Break Surge and Anterior Chamber Stability in the Intraocular Environment of Modern Phacoemulsification: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- "Ultrasound-Assisted High-Fluidics Phacoaspiration": An Efficient and Safe Technique for Nucleus Quadrant Workup Through 2.2 mm Mini- and 1.6 mm Micro-Incisions Following Manual or Femtosecond Laser Sectorial Lens Fragmentation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A Simple Repair Algorithm for Descemet's Membrane Detachment Performed at the Slit Lamp.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phacoemulsification is an effective and widely performed technique in cataract surgery, but the comparative anatomical outcomes, including endothelial cell loss (ECL), central corneal thickness (CCT), and central macular thickness (CMT), between high-flow and low-flow phacoemulsification cataract surgery remain unclear. Methods: This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. Random-effects models were applied to measure pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of anatomical outcomes between high-flow and low-flow phacoemulsification cataract surgery. We judged overall certainty of evidence (CoE) based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Results: We included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) totaling 477 participants. The meta-analysis showed similar changes associated with these two surgery types in both ECL at postoperative days 2-14 (MD: -1.63%; 95% CI: -3.73 to 0.47%; CoE: very low), days 15-42 (MD: -0.65%; 95% CI -2.96 to 1.65%; CoE: very low) and day 43 to month 18 (MD: -0.35%; 95% CI: -1.48 to 0.78%; CoE: very low), and CCT at postoperative day 1 (MD: -16.37 μm; 95% CI: -56.91 to 24.17 μm; CoE: very low), days 2-14 (MD: -10.92 μm; 95% CI: -30.00 to 8.16 μm; CoE: very low) and days 15-42 (MD: -2.76 μm; 95% CI: -5.75 to 0.24 μm; CoE: low). By contrast, low-flow phacoemulsification showed less increase in CMT at postoperative days 15-42 (MD, -4.58 μm; 95% CI: -6.3 to -2.86 μm; CoE: low). Conclusions: We found similar anatomical outcomes, except in CMT, for both high-flow and low-flow phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Future head-to-head RCTs on visual outcomes should confirm our findings. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42022297036.
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.