SynthesisEye (London, England)2024
Topical NSAIDs impact on macular oedema and visual outcome after phacoemulsification: systematic review of RCTs with network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Association of Systemic and Ocular Comorbidities with Visual Recovery in Patients with Postoperative Corneal Oedema: A Real-World Study of Cataract Surgery Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clarifying Molecular Mechanisms and Novel Strategies for Intervention of Uremia and Cognitive Decline.Kidney & blood pressure research · 2026Review
- Assessment of drug utilization evaluation and post-dispensing knowledge of ophthalmic medications: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Comparative efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in preventing postoperative macular edema following cataract surgery: a systematic review and Network Meta-analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this Network Meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of the different topical Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when added or not to topical steroids in preventing the thickening of the macula and their impact on visual acuity and intraocular pressure after phacoemulsification. Five electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome was one-month post-surgery visual outcome. We also considered change in Foveal thickness (FT) and Intraocular pressure (IOP) at one-month post-surgery. We summarized our analyses by calculating the mean differences (MD) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using restricted maximum likelihood in random effects models for continuous outcomes. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The network meta-analysis was conducted using frequentist approach considering Nepafenac 0.1% as a reference medication. Eleven Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 2175 subjects were selected for quantitative analysis. At one-month post-surgery, Bromfenac had statistically significant better visual acuity compared to Nepafenac 0.1% (p < 0.001), regarding FT, Nepafenac 0.3% had the least increase in FT compared to Nepafenac 0.1% (p = 0.09), regarding IOP, Diclofenac had the lowest IOP. No significant results regarding FT and IOP. Interestingly Ketorolac had the worst results regarding BCVA and IOP, and came last but one for FT. Overall, our network meta-analysis demonstrated that Bromfenac was associated with a significant improvement in visual acuity compared to Nepafenac 0.1% at one-month following cataract surgery, while Nepafenac 0.3% was associated with the least increase in foveal thickness.
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.