Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41841118›Full record

ReviewAJO international2026

A global scoping review of clinical practice guidelines for cataract surgery.

Sheila K West, Ian J Saldanha, Fasika Woreta, Christina Ambrosino, Jay Maturi, Fekadu Ayalew, Jordan Kaplan, Annabelle Pan, Winnie Liu, Anna Kim and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AJO international, 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.

Sheila K WestDana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore MD 21287, USA.
Ian J SaldanhaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Fasika WoretaDana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore MD 21287, USA.
Christina AmbrosinoJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Jay MaturiJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Fekadu AyalewJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Jordan KaplanJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Annabelle PanJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Winnie LiuJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Anna KimJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD 21205, USA.
Emily JosephWelch Medical Library, Baltimore MD 21205 USA.
Andreas S MuellerVision and Blindness Prevention Programme, World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Silvio P MariottiVision and Blindness Prevention Programme, World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The World Health Organization (WHO) has specified a global target for "effective cataract surgery coverage" for monitoring progress towards tincreasing eye care quality across populations. The WHO is committed to providing evidence-based guidance for components of cataract surgerythat could lead to better outcomes. The first step is a scoping review of from existing guidelines, including the evidence base and gaps in the evidence for those guidelines. Design: We developed a conceptual framework for the scoping review that compartmentalized stages of cataract surgery into pre-operative, operative, and postoperative phases and identified potential outcome indicators. A search strategy was developed. Methods: In 2024, we used a multipronged approach to identify existing guidelines that support cataract surgery programs, reviewed known publicly available cataract surgery quality improvement programs, searched the Trip Medical Database, and reviewed materials sent to us directly from WHO. We noted the evidence-base of the guidelines. Results: Of the 156 sources, 34 had guidelines. Seven guidelines were cited by multiple sources with good evidence; these include use of pre-operative povidone-iodine, a "time-out" checklist, intracameral antibiotics, and phacoemulsification. Some guidelines were inconsistent and require harmonization, such as the necessity for pre-operative medical visits and laboratory testing, and benchmarks for outcome assessment. Gaps in evidence were also found, such as details on what constitutes "accurate" biometry. Conclusions: While these results are a reasonable starting point for WHO to begin the development of guidance for effective cataract surgery, there is an urgent need to generate data that will fill identified gaps in evidence and to harmonize inconsistencies going forward.

Indexed as

Cataract surgeryGuidelinesIntra-operative outcomesPost-operative outcomesProcess indicatorsScoping review

Identifiers

PMID41841118
PMCPMC12988862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.