Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41667659›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2026

OphthoEvidence report: Protocol for quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines in ophthalmology.

João Pedro Lima, Nazmul Islam, Hamed Movahed, Domenic Alaimo, Briana Carciumaru, Daisy Sun, Sahara Rosha, Rachel Couban, Sobha Sivaprasad, David H Steel and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

João Pedro LimaDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5486-7211
Nazmul IslamDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Hamed MovahedDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Domenic AlaimoSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Briana CarciumaruDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Daisy SunMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sahara RoshaSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Rachel CoubanDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sobha SivaprasadNIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
David H SteelSunderland Eye Infirmary, Queen Alexandra Road, Sunderland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8734-3089
Charles C WykoffRetina Consultants of Texas, Texas, USA.
Dena ZeraatkarDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Varun ChaudharyDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. vchaudh@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-4146

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectiveOphthalmologists rely on clinical practice guidelines to inform their practice. Not all guidelines, however, are considered trustworthy. For guidelines to be credible and evidence-based, internationally-accepted standards suggest that they must adhere to certain criteria. We aim to identify strengths and limitations of commonly used ophthalmology guidelines and provide insights to develop trustworthy, fit-for-purpose guidelines in the field.

methodsWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, Trip Database, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists ( https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/ ) and American Academy of Ophthalmology ( https://www.aao.org/clinical-statements ) websites. From these sources, we will include a purposeful sample 100 guidelines published from 2015 onwards addressing diverse areas in ophthalmology (e.g., cornea, glaucoma, retina, paediatrics, etc.) - forty guidelines from major eye care organisations and sixty from diverse ophthalmology subspecialties and regions. We will appraise each guideline according to the modified National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument.

conclusionBy identifying best practices and common pitfalls in existing guidelines, this work will provide a roadmap for creating more robust, transparent, and patient-centred clinical practice guidelines in ophthalmology.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyPractice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID41667659
PMCPMC13061896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.