SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Meta-analysis: clinical outcomes of laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in hyperopia.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal Effects on Corneal Densitometry and Haze After Mitomycin C-Assisted Photorefractive Keratectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Optimal Keratoplasty in Reduction of Hyperopia and Hyperopic Presbyopia: A Retrospective Observational Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
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
backgroundTo evaluate differences in clinical outcome, safety, and efficacy of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in the correction of hyperopic refractive errors.
methodsWe have adhered to PRISMA criteria in this systematic review, which is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023469543). Our search with studies comparing PRK and LASIK for hyperopia was conducted through the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We used the Cochrane method to assess bias and evaluated variables like uncorrected distance visual acuity and mean spherical equivalent. Using fixed- or random-effects models, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 for evaluating heterogeneity and significance. Sensitivity analysis addressed the causes of heterogeneity to assure stability.
resultsWe included 6 articles (419 participants, 585 eyes) in this review five were retrospective and 1 case-series. The final mean refractive SE (WMD, -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.31; P = 0.06). patients achieving uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.78; P = 0.33). final UDVA of 20/40 or better (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.65-3.02; P = 0.81) were analyzed.
conclusionsIn this meta-analysis, LASIK had no significant benefits over PRK in relation to clinical outcomes. Less corneal haze was observed in LASIK-treated eyes at 1 to 3 months after surgery.
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.