The Quality of Systematic Reviews About Interventions for Refractive Error Can Be Improved: a Review of Systematic Reviews

Overview

Journal BMC Ophthalmol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2017 Sep 6

PMID 28870179

Citations 15

Authors

Evan Mayo-Wilson

Sueko Matsumura Ng

Roy S Chuck

Tianjing Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.

Methods: Systematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.

Results: We identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.

Conclusions: Most systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.

Citing Articles

Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

McCann P, Kruoch Z, Lopez S, Malli S, Qureshi R, Li T JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023; 142(1):58-74.

PMID: 38127364 PMC: 11613798. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.5751.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.

Kolaski K, Logan L, Ioannidis J J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2023; 16(2):241-273.

PMID: 37302044 PMC: 10258887. DOI: 10.3233/PRM-230019.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Kolaski K, Logan L, Ioannidis J Syst Rev. 2023; 12(1):96.

PMID: 37291658 PMC: 10248995. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02255-9.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Kolaski K, Logan L, Ioannidis J BMC Infect Dis. 2023; 23(1):383.

PMID: 37286949 PMC: 10247272. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08304-x.

TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.

Downie L, Britten-Jones A, Hogg R, Jalbert I, Li T, Lingham G Ocul Surf. 2023; 28:200-212.

PMID: 37054912 PMC: 11246749. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.009.

References

Solomon K, de Castro L, Sandoval H, Biber J, Groat B, Neff K . LASIK world literature review: quality of life and patient satisfaction. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116(4):691-701. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.037. View

Wen D, Huang J, Li X, Savini G, Feng Y, Lin Q . Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy versus epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 42(4):323-33. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.12205. View

Virgili G, Menchini F . Laser photocoagulation for choroidal neovascularisation in pathologic myopia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; (4):CD004765. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004765.pub2. View

Wei M, Liu J, Li N, Liu M . Acupuncture for slowing the progression of myopia in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (9):CD007842. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007842.pub2. View

Szczotka-Flynn L, Diaz M . Risk of corneal inflammatory events with silicone hydrogel and low dk hydrogel extended contact lens wear: a meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2007; 84(4):247-56. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3180421c47. View

Shortt A, Allan B, Evans J . Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (1):CD005135. PMC: 11848121. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub3. View

Settas G, Settas C, Minos E, Yeung I . Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia correction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; (6):CD007112. PMC: 7388917. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub3. View

Ioannidis J . The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016; 94(3):485-514. PMC: 5020151. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. View

Li T, Ervin A, Scherer R, Jampel H, Dickersin K . Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117(10):1937-45. PMC: 2967722. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.004. View

10.

Lindsley K, Li T, Ssemanda E, Virgili G, Dickersin K . Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(4):884-97. PMC: 4808456. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.004. View

11.

Pearce M . Clinical outcomes following the dispensing of ready-made and recycled spectacles: a systematic literature review. Clin Exp Optom. 2014; 97(3):225-33. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12126. View

12.

Zhao L, Wei R, Cheng J, Li Y, Cai J, Ma X . Meta-analysis: clinical outcomes of laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy in myopia. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117(10):1912-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.004. View

13.

Fernandes P, Gonzalez-Meijome J, Madrid-Costa D, Ferrer-Blasco T, Jorge J, Montes-Mico R . Implantable collamer posterior chamber intraocular lenses: a review of potential complications. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27(10):765-76. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20110617-01. View

14.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:1. PMC: 4320440. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. View

15.

Chen L, Ye T, Yang X . Evaluation of the long-term effects of photorefractive keratectomy correction for myopia in China. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011; 21(4):355-62. DOI: 10.5301/EJO.2011.6226. View

16.

Jain S, Arora I, Azar D . Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996; 40(6):491-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6257(96)82015-7. View

17.

Shortt A, Allan B . Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; (2):CD005135. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub2. View

18.

Shea B, Grimshaw J, Wells G, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C . Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7:10. PMC: 1810543. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10. View

19.

Cui M, Chen X, Lu P . Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008; 121(22):2331-5. View

20.

Li S, Wu S, Kang M, Liu Y, Jia S, Li S . Atropine slows myopia progression more in Asian than white children by meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2014; 91(3):342-50. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000178. View