» Articles » PMID: 33571689

What Do We Really Know About the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Purpose: To identify systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions and to assess their reliability, thereby generating a list of potentially reliable reviews for updating glaucoma practice guidelines.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Participants: Systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions.

Methods: We used a database of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vision research and eye care maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite. We examined all Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published before August 7, 2019, and all non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published between January 1, 2014, and August 7, 2019.

Main Outcome Measures: We assessed eligible reviews for reliability, extracted characteristics, and summarized key findings from reviews classified as reliable.

Results: Of the 4451 systematic reviews in eyes and vision identified, 129 met our eligibility criteria and were assessed for reliability. Of these, we classified 49 (38%) as reliable. We found open-angle glaucoma (22/49) to be the condition with the most reviews and medical management (17/49) and intraocular pressure (IOP; 43/49) to be the most common interventions and outcomes studied. Most reviews found a high degree of uncertainty in the evidence, which hinders the possibility of making strong recommendations in guidelines. These reviews found high-certainty evidence about a few topics: reducing IOP helps to prevent glaucoma and its progression, prostaglandin analogs are the most effective medical treatment for lowering IOP, laser trabeculoplasty is as effective as medical treatment as a first-line therapy in controlling IOP, the use of IOP-lowering medications in the perioperative or postoperative periods to accompany laser (e.g., trabeculoplasty) reduces the risk of postoperative IOP spikes, conventional surgery (i.e., trabeculectomy) is more effective than medications in reducing IOP, and antimetabolites and β-radiation improve IOP control after trabeculectomy. The evidence is weak regarding the effectiveness of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries.

Conclusions: Most systematic reviews evaluating interventions for glaucoma are of poor reliability. Even among those that may be considered reliable, important limitations exist in the value of information because of the uncertainty of the evidence as well as small and sometimes unimportant clinical differences between interventions.

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.


Cost-utility analysis of commonly used anti-glaucoma interventions for mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma patients in rural and urban China.

Li R, Zhang K, Lu Z, Mou D, Wang J, Li H BMJ Open. 2023; 13(9):e073219.

PMID: 37673456 PMC: 10496665. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073219.


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.


Evaluation of the Efficacy Duration of Topical Therapies in Eyes with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

Lanza M, Leone A, Scognamiglio G, Serra L, Iodice C, Melillo P J Clin Med. 2022; 11(20).

PMID: 36294484 PMC: 9605467. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206166.


Systematic review of the method and quality of reporting of complications from studies evaluating innovative glaucoma surgical procedures.

Bonnar J, Azuara-Blanco A Eye (Lond). 2022; 37(9):1774-1777.

PMID: 36253459 PMC: 10276025. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02268-z.


References
1.
Handley M, Stuart M, Kirz H . An evidence-based approach to evaluating and improving clinical practice: implementing practice guidelines. HMO Pract. 1994; 8(2):75-83. View

2.
Li T, Saldanha I, Jap J, Smith B, Canner J, Hutfless S . A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 115:77-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.005. View

3.
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

4.
Forsythe L, Heckert A, Margolis M, Schrandt S, Frank L . Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Qual Life Res. 2017; 27(1):17-31. PMC: 5770504. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1581-x. View

5.
Saldanha I, Lindsley K, Lum F, Dickersin K, Li T . Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019; 137(7):775-785. PMC: 6512297. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1063. View