Swedish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
JAMA Ophthalmology 2019-Jul

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews.

Endast registrerade användare kan översätta artiklar
Logga in Bli medlem
Länken sparas på Urklipp
Ian Saldanha
Kristina Lindsley
Flora Lum
Kay Dickersin
Tianjing Li

Nyckelord

Abstrakt

Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Gå med på vår
facebook-sida

Den mest kompletta databasen med medicinska örter som stöds av vetenskapen

  • Fungerar på 55 språk
  • Växtbaserade botemedel som stöds av vetenskap
  • Örter igenkänning av bild
  • Interaktiv GPS-karta - märka örter på plats (kommer snart)
  • Läs vetenskapliga publikationer relaterade till din sökning
  • Sök efter medicinska örter efter deras effekter
  • Organisera dina intressen och håll dig uppdaterad med nyheterna, kliniska prövningar och patent

Skriv ett symptom eller en sjukdom och läs om örter som kan hjälpa, skriv en ört och se sjukdomar och symtom den används mot.
* All information baseras på publicerad vetenskaplig forskning

Google Play badgeApp Store badge