Face-down positioning or posturing after pars plana vitrectomy for macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachments.

BACKGROUND: A macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is one of the most common ophthalmic surgical emergencies and causes significant visual morbidity. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with gas tamponade is often performed to repair primary macula-involving RRDs with a high rate of anatomical retinal reattachment. It has been advocated by some ophthalmologists that face-down positioning after PPV and gas tamponade helps reduce postoperative retinal displacement. Retinal displacement can cause metamorphopsia and binocular diplopia. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to determine whether face-down positioning reduces the risk of retinal displacement following PPV and gas tamponade for primary macula-involving RRDs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1946 to 28 November 2022), Embase.com (January 1947 to 28 November 2022), PubMed (1948 to 28 November 2022), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (1982 to 28 November 2022), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which face-down positioning was compared with no positioning or another form of positioning following PPV and gas tamponade for primary macula-involving RRDs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for the prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs (369 eyes of 368 participants) that met the eligibility criteria. Two RCTs provided data on postoperative retinal displacement, one reported on postoperative distortion and quality of life outcomes, two on postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logMAR, and two on postoperative ocular adverse events such as outer retinal folds. Study characteristics and risk of bias All the trials involved predominantly male participants (range: 68% to 72%). Only one trial provided race and ethnicity information, was registered on a trial registry, and reported funding sources. Using the RoB 2 tool, we assessed the risk of bias for proportion of eyes with retinal displacement, mean change in visual acuity, objective distortion scores, quality of life assessments, and ocular adverse events, with most domains judged to be at low risk of bias. Findings Immediate face-down positioning may result in a lower proportion of participants with postoperative retinal displacement compared with support-the-break positioning at six months (risk ratio [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.99; 1 RCT; 239 eyes of 239 participants; very low certainty evidence). One study found no evidence of a difference in BCVA at three months when comparing postoperative face-up with face-down positioning with or without perfluorocarbon liquid (mean difference [MD] -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02; I2 = 0; 56 eyes of 56 participants; very low certainty evidence). Immediate face-down positioning appears to have little to no effect on postoperative distortion scores at week 26 (MD 1.80, 95% CI -1.92 to 5.52; 1 RCT; 219 eyes of 219 participants; very low certainty evidence) and postoperative quality of life assessment scores at week 26 (MD -1.80, 95% CI -5.52 to 1.92; 1 RCT; 217 eyes of 217 participants; very low certainty evidence). Adverse events One study that enrolled 262 participants with macula-involving RRDs suggested that immediate face-down positioning after PPV and gas tamponade may reduce the ocular adverse event of postoperative outer retinal folds at six months (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.90; 1 RCT; 262 eyes of 262 participants; very low certainty evidence) and binocular diplopia (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.90; 1 RCT; 262 eyes of 262 participants; very low certainty evidence) compared with support-the-break positioning. Immediate face-down positioning may increase the ocular adverse event of elevated intraocular pressure compared with support-the-break positioning (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73; 1 RCT; 262 eyes of 262 participants; very low certainty evidence). Another study found no evidence of a difference in postoperative outer retinal folds when comparing face-down versus face-up positioning at one and three months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.02; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.61; 1 RCT; 56 eyes of 56 participants; very low certainty evidence). No studies reported non-ocular adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low certainty evidence suggests that immediate face-down positioning after PPV and gas tamponade may result in a reduction in postoperative retinal displacement, outer retinal folds, and binocular diplopia, but may increase the chance of postoperative raised intraocular pressure compared with support-the-break positioning at six months. We identified two ongoing trials that compare face-down positioning with face-up positioning following PPV and gas tamponade in participants with primary macula-involving RRDs, whose results may provide relevant evidence for our stated objectives. Future trials should be rigorously designed, and investigators should analyze outcome data appropriately and report adequate information to provide evidence of high certainty. Quality of life and patient preferences should be examined in addition to clinical and adverse event outcomes.

Patient barriers and facilitators for making environmental and behavioral modifications for dry eye in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Managing dry eye disease (DED) is expensive. Often, prescribed treatments improve clinical signs but not patient-reported symptoms. In large surveys, clinicians and patients ranked environmental and behavioral modifications among the most important DED-related research priorities. Our purpose was to investigate the barriers to and facilitators of use of these modifications by patients with DED in the United States and how their use may be impacted by socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: Using Qualtrics, we conducted an anonymous online survey of adults with DED living in the United States in August to September 2022. Patients were identified through the Dry Eye Foundation, Sjögren's Foundation, and a DED clinic in Colorado. We used an established index for classifying respondent SES based on education, household income, and employment. Outcomes included use of environmental and behavioral modifications and barriers to and facilitators of their use. RESULTS: We included 754 respondents (SES: 382 low, 275 high, and 97 unclear). Most were aged 18 to 49 years (67%), female (68%), and White (76%) and reported dealing with DED for ≤5 years (67%). The most frequent modifications were taking breaks to rest eyes (68%), increasing water intake (68%), and using hot/cold compresses (52%). For these three, the biggest facilitators were as follows: belief that the modification works (27 to 37%), being recommended it (24 to 26%), and ease of use/performance (21 to 32%). Across modifications, the biggest barriers were difficulty of use (55%), lack of family/employer/social/community support (33%), and lack of awareness (32%). The data do not suggest discernible patterns of differences in barriers or facilitators by SES. CONCLUSIONS: Greater emphasis should be placed on explaining to patients how environmental and behavioral modifications might mitigate DED. Employers and members of patients' support systems should be guided regarding how best to support patients in managing DED symptoms.

Social Determinants of Dry Eye in the United States: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to summarize current evidence on associations between social determinants of health (SDOH) indicators and dry eye in the United States. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We followed a protocol registered on Open Science Framework to include studies that examined associations between SDOH indicators and dry eye. We mapped SDOH indicators to 1 of the 5 domains following the Healthy People 2030 framework and categorized dry eye measures into "dry eye diagnosis and care," "dry eye symptoms," or "ocular surface parameters." We summarized the direction of association between SDOH indicators and dry eye as worsening, beneficial, or null. We used items from the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eighteen studies reporting 51 SDOH indicators, mostly mapped to the neighborhood and built environment domain, were included. Thirteen studies were judged at high risk of bias. Fifteen of 19 (79%) associations revealed an increase in the diagnosis of dry eye or delayed specialty care for it. Thirty-four of 56 (61%) associations unveiled exacerbated dry eye symptoms. Fifteen of 23 (65%) found null associations with corneal fluorescein staining. Ten of 22 (45%) associations revealed an increased tear break up time (45%) whereas another 10 (45%) showed null associations. CONCLUSIONS: Most SDOH indicators studied were associated with unfavorable dry eye measures, such as a higher disease burden, worse symptoms, or delayed referral, in the United States. Future investigations between SDOH and dry eye should use standardized instruments and address the domains in which there is an evidence gap.

Prevalence of dry eye and Meibomian gland dysfunction in Central and South America: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye is one of the most common ophthalmic conditions and can significantly impact quality of life. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye. We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in Central and South America and to identify factors associated with disease burden. METHODS: Data sources Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: A search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The review was based on a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using a risk of bias tool designed for the purposes of descriptive epidemiological studies. Data were extracted by one investigator and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were grouped based on study participant characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in Central and South America. Summary estimates from meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Fourteen studies (11,594 total participants) were included. The population prevalence of dry eye was 13% (95% CI, 12%-14%) in Brazil and 41% (95% CI, 39%-44%) in Mexico based on one study each. Meta-analyses suggested that dry eye prevalence was 70% among indoor workers (95% CI, 56%-80%; I2, 82%; 3 studies), 71% among students (95% CI, 65%-77%; I2, 92%; 3 studies), and 83% in general ophthalmology clinics (95% CI, 77%-88%; I2, 88%; 2 studies). MGD prevalence ranged from 23% among indoor workers (95% CI, 16%-31%; 1 study) to 68% in general ophthalmology clinics (95% CI, 62%-72%; 1 study). No studies reported incidence of dry eye or MGD. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated considerable variation in the published prevalence of dry eye and MGD among the general population and subpopulations in Central and South America. Local and subpopulation estimates of dry eye disease burden may be valuable to assist needs assessments and implementation of measures to mitigate the condition.

Antibiotics Versus Placebo for Acute Bacterial Conjunctivitis: Findings From a Cochrane Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To summarize key findings from a Cochrane review of the benefits and safety of antibiotic therapy compared with placebo (or vehicle) for acute bacterial conjunctivitis. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We included placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared topical antibiotics with placebo. We followed Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs involving 8805 participants with acute bacterial conjunctivitis were included. Fifteen (71%) RCTs examined fluoroquinolone (FQ) drops, 3 tested macrolides, alone or in combination with steroids, and another 3 compared other non-FQ antibiotics. Intention-to-treat estimates suggested that compared with placebo, antibiotics may increase clinical recovery by 26% (risk ratio [RR]: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.46) at the end of therapy (5 RCTs, 1474 participants). Modified intention-to-treat estimates, in which only participants with laboratory-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis were analyzed, indicated that antibiotics were associated with 53% higher likelihood of microbiological cure as compared with placebo (RR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.34-1.74; 10 RCTs, 2827 participants). Non-FQs (RR: 4.05; 95% CI: 1.36-12.00), but not FQs (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.90), were likely to increase treatment-associated ocular complications such as eye pain, discomfort, and allergic reactions; the certainty of level of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate level certainty of evidence suggested that antibiotics may increase the likelihood of clinical recovery and microbiological clearance compared with placebo. Very low-level certainty of evidence suggested that antibiotics may be associated with potential harm in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis, but the potential risk of bias from study design, inconsistency in outcome measurement, and reporting limit the evidence to very low certainty.

Prolonged facemask wearing among hospital workers and dry eye - a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged facemask wearing may have negatively affected essential workers with dry eye. We conducted a mixed-methods study to examine and understand the associations of the ocular surface, periocular environment, and dry eye-related symptoms among hospital workers across the job spectrum with prolonged facemask use. METHODS: We recruited clinical and non-clinical hospital workers with self-reported symptoms of dry eye and prolonged facemask use. We measured symptoms using the 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Objective ocular signs included corneal and conjunctival staining, fluorescein tear break up time (TBUT), meibography, tear film interferometry, and periocular humidity. We compared symptoms and signs across levels of periocular humidity, dry eye severity, facemask type, and job type. Participants with moderate or severe dry eye symptoms (OSDI > = 23) were invited for a semi-structured, one-on-one interview. RESULTS: We enrolled 20 clinical and 21 non-clinical hospital workers: 27% were 40 years or older, 76% were female, 29% reported a race other than White, and 20% were Hispanic. Seventeen individuals participated in the semi-structured interviews. From the quantitative analyses, we found that 90% of participants reported worsened severity of dry eye at work due to facemasks. Although wearing facemasks resulted in higher periocular humidity levels compared with not wearing facemasks, 66% participants reported increased airflow over their eyes. Findings from the qualitative interviews supported the finding that use of facemasks worsened dry eye symptoms, especially when facemasks were not fitted around the nose. The data did not suggest that non-clinical hospital workers experienced a greater impact of dry eye than clinical workers. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers and patients with dry eye should be educated about the discomfort and the ocular surface health risks associated with inadequately fitted facemasks. Wearing a fitted facemask with a pliable nose wire appears to mitigate the upward airflow.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis.

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. Considering improvement in visual acuity, we assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.15 logMAR, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on improving BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time. To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.

Topical ophthalmic anesthetics for corneal abrasions.

BACKGROUND: Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and ophthalmic complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical ophthalmic anesthetics compared with placebo or other treatments in persons with corneal abrasions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase.com; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The search was performed on 10 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical ophthalmic anesthetics alone or in combination with another treatment (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) versus a non-anesthetic control group (e.g. placebo, non-treatment, or alternative treatment). We included trials that enrolled participants of all ages who had corneal abrasions within 48 hours of presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine parallel-group RCTs with a total of 556 participants (median number of participants per study: 45, interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 74), conducted in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, South Korea, Turkey, New Zealand, UK, and USA. Study characteristics and risk of bias Four RCTs (314 participants) investigated post-traumatic corneal abrasions diagnosed in the emergency department setting. Five trials described 242 participants from ophthalmology surgery centers with post-surgical corneal defects: four from photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and one from pterygium surgery. Study duration ranged from two days to six months, the most common being one week (four RCTs). Treatment duration ranged from three hours to one week (nine RCTs); the majority were between 24 and 48 hours (five RCTs). The age of participants was reported in eight studies, ranging from 17 to 74 years of age. Only one participant in one trial was under 18 years of age. Of four studies that reported funding sources, none was industry-sponsored. We judged a high risk of bias in one trial with respect to the outcome pain control by 48 hours, and in five of seven trials with respect to the outcome complications at the furthest time point. The domain for which we assessed studies to be at the highest risk of bias was missing or selective reporting of outcome data. Findings The treatments investigated included topical anesthetics compared with placebo, topical anesthetic compared with NSAID (post-surgical cases), and topical anesthetics plus NSAID compared with placebo (post-surgical cases). Pain control by 24 hours In all studies, self-reported pain outcomes were on a 10-point scale, where lower numbers represent less pain. In post-surgical trials, topical anesthetics provided a moderate reduction in self-reported pain at 24 hours compared with placebo of 1.28 points on a 10-point scale (mean difference (MD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.76 to -0.80; 3 RCTs, 119 participants). In the post-trauma participants, there may be little or no difference in effect (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 1 RCT, 76 participants). Compared with NSAID in post-surgical participants, topical anesthetics resulted in a slight increase in pain at 24 hours (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 74 participants). One RCT compared topical anesthetics plus NSAID to placebo. There may be a large reduction in pain at 24 hours with topical anesthetics plus NSAID in post-surgical participants, but the evidence to support this large effect is very uncertain (MD -5.72, 95% CI -7.35 to -4.09; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pain control by 48 hours Compared with placebo, topical anesthetics reduced post-trauma pain substantially by 48 hours (MD -5.68, 95% CI -6.38 to -4.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants) but had little to no effect on post-surgical pain (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 44 participants), although the evidence is very uncertain. Pain control by 72 hours One post-surgical RCT showed little or no effect of topical anesthetics compared with placebo by 72 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.04; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with unresolved epithelial defects When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics increased the number of participants without complete resolution of defects in trials of post-trauma participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.42; 3 RCTs, 221 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The proportion of placebo-treated post-surgical participants with unresolved epithelial defects at 24 to 72 hours was lower when compared with those assigned to topical anesthetics (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or topical anesthetics plus NSAID (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with complications at the longest follow-up When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics resulted in a higher proportion of post-trauma participants with complications at up to two weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.46; 3 RCTs, 242 participants) and post-surgical participants with complications at up to one week (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 128.02; 1 RCT, 44 participants). When topical anesthetic plus NSAID was compared with placebo, no complications were reported in either treatment arm up to one week post-surgery (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 30 participants). The evidence is very uncertain for safety outcomes. Quality of life None of the included trials assessed quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite topical anesthetics providing excellent pain control in the intraoperative setting, the currently available evidence provides little or no certainty about their efficacy for reducing ocular pain in the initial 24 to 72 hours after a corneal abrasion, whether from unintentional trauma or surgery. We have very low confidence in this evidence as a basis to recommend topical anesthetics as an efficacious treatment modality to relieve pain from corneal abrasions. We also found no evidence of a substantial effect on epithelial healing up to 72 hours or a reduction in ocular complications when we compared anesthetics alone or with NSAIDs versus placebo.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the different estimates in a different stage of the pandemic outbreak.

Background: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic caused enormous adverse socioeconomic impacts worldwide. Evidence suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features of COVID-19 may vary among different populations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the WHO Global Health Library for studies evaluating the accuracy of clinical features to predict and prognosticate COVID-19. We used the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool to evaluate the risk of bias, and the random-effects approach to obtain pooled prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Results: Among the 189 included studies (53 659 patients), fever, cough, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, and fatigue were the most reported predictors. In the later stage of the pandemic, the sensitivity in predicting COVID-19 of fever and cough decreased, while the sensitivity of other symptoms, including sputum production, sore throat, myalgia, fatigue, dyspnoea, headache, and diarrhoea, increased. A combination of fever, cough, fatigue, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus increases the odds of having a COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with a positive test (positive likelihood ratio (PLR) = 3.06)) and decreases the odds in those with a negative test (negative likelihood ratio (NLR) = 0.59)). A combination of fever, cough, sputum production, myalgia, fatigue, and dyspnea had a PLR = 10.44 and an NLR = 0.16 in predicting severe COVID-19. Further updating the umbrella review (1092 studies, including 3 342 969 patients) revealed the different prevalence of symptoms in different stages of the pandemic. Conclusions: Understanding the possible different distributions of predictors is essential for screening for potential COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes. Understanding that the prevalence of symptoms may change with time is important to developing a prediction model.

Diagnostic performance of deep learning in infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Infectious keratitis (IK) represents the fifth-leading cause of blindness worldwide. A delay in diagnosis is often a major factor in progression to irreversible visual impairment and/or blindness from IK. The diagnostic challenge is further compounded by low microbiological culture yield, long turnaround time, poorly differentiated clinical features and polymicrobial infections. In recent years, deep learning (DL), a subfield of artificial intelligence, has rapidly emerged as a promising tool in assisting automated medical diagnosis, clinical triage and decision-making, and improving workflow efficiency in healthcare services. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of using DL in assisting the diagnosis of IK, though the accuracy remains to be elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to critically examine and compare the performance of various DL models with clinical experts and/or microbiological results (the current 'gold standard') in diagnosing IK, with an aim to inform practice on the clinical applicability and deployment of DL-assisted diagnostic models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will consider studies that included application of any DL models to diagnose patients with suspected IK, encompassing bacterial, fungal, protozoal and/or viral origins. We will search various electronic databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE, and trial registries. There will be no restriction to the language and publication date. Two independent reviewers will assess the titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Extracted data will include details of each primary studies, including title, year of publication, authors, types of DL models used, populations, sample size, decision threshold and diagnostic performance. We will perform meta-analyses for the included primary studies when there are sufficient similarities in outcome reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentation/publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022348596.

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

Evidence-based practice is a dominant paradigm in healthcare that emphasizes the importance of ensuring the translation of the best available, relevant research evidence into practice. An Evidence Quality Subcommittee was established to provide specialized methodological support and expertise to promote rigorous and evidence-based approaches for the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Lifestyle Epidemic reports. The present report describes the purpose, scope, and activity of the Evidence Quality Subcommittee in the undertaking of high-quality narrative-style literature reviews, and leading prospectively registered, reliable systematic reviews of high priority research questions, using standardized methods for each topic area report. Identification of predominantly low or very low certainty evidence across the eight systematic reviews highlights a need for further research to define the efficacy and/or safety of specific lifestyle interventions on the ocular surface, and to clarify relationships between certain lifestyle factors and ocular surface disease. To support the citation of reliable systematic review evidence in the narrative review sections of each report, the Evidence Quality Subcommittee curated topic-specific systematic review databases and relevant systematic reviews underwent standardized reliability assessment. Inconsistent methodological rigor was noted in the published systematic review literature, emphasizing the importance of internal validity assessment. Based on the experience of implementing the Evidence Quality Subcommittee, this report makes suggestions for incorporation of such initiatives in future international taskforces and working groups. Content areas broadly relevant to the activity of the Evidence Quality Subcommittee, including the critical appraisal of research, clinical evidence hierarchies (levels of evidence), and risk of bias assessment, are also outlined.

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of cosmetics on the ocular surface.

In this report the use of eye cosmetic products and procedures and how this represents a lifestyle challenge that may exacerbate or promote the development of ocular surface and adnexal disease is discussed. Multiple aspects of eye cosmetics are addressed, including their history and market value, psychological and social impacts, possible problems associated with cosmetic ingredients, products, and procedures, and regulations for eye cosmetic use. In addition, a systematic review that critically appraises randomized controlled trial evidence concerning the ocular effects of eyelash growth products is included. The findings of this systematic review highlight the evidence gaps and indicate future directions for research to focus on ocular surface outcomes associated with eyelash growth products.

Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on the basis that they may speed recovery, reduce persistence, and prevent keratitis. However, many cases of acute bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limited, resolving without antibiotic therapy. This Cochrane Review was first published in The Cochrane Library in 1999, then updated in 2006, 2012, and 2022. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and side effects of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2022, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2022), Embase (January 1980 to May 2022), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases in May 2022.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which any form of antibiotic treatment, with or without steroid, had been compared with placebo/vehicle in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This included topical and systemic antibiotic treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies. We assessed the full text of all potentially relevant studies and determined the included RCTs, which were further assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. We performed data extraction in a standardized manner and conducted random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan Web. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 eligible RCTs, 10 of which were newly identified in this update. A total of 8805 participants were randomized. All treatments were topical in the form of drops or ointment. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of their eligibility criteria, the nature of the intervention (antibiotic drug class, which included fluoroquinolones [FQs] and non-FQs; dosage frequency; duration of treatment), the outcomes assessed and the time points of assessment. We judged one trial to be of high risk of bias, four as low risk of bias, and the others as raising some concerns. Based on intention-to-treat (ITT) population, antibiotics likely improved clinical cure (resolution of clinical symptoms or signs) by 26% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.46; 5 trials, 1474 participants; moderate certainty) as compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed no differences by antibiotic class (P = 0.67) or treatment duration (P = 0.60). In the placebo group, 55.5% (408/735) of participants had spontaneous clinical resolution by days 4 to 9 versus 68.2% (504/739) of participants treated with an antibiotic. Based on modified ITT population, in which participants were analyzed after randomization on the basis of positive microbiological culture, antibiotics likely increased microbiological cure (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 10 trials, 2827 participants) compared with placebo at the end of therapy; there were no subgroup differences by drug class (P = 0.60). No study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. Patients receiving antibiotics had a lower risk of treatment incompletion than those in the placebo group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78; 13 trials, 5573 participants; moderate certainty) and were 27% less likely to have persistent clinical infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81; 19 trials, 5280 participants; moderate certainty). There was no evidence of serious systemic side effects reported in either the antibiotic or placebo group (very low certainty). When compared with placebo, FQs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90) but not non-FQs (RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.36 to 12.00) may result in fewer participants with ocular side effects. However, the estimated effects were of very low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this update suggest that the use of topical antibiotics is associated with a modestly improved chance of resolution in comparison to the use of placebo. Since no evidence of serious side effects was reported, use of antibiotics may therefore be considered to achieve better clinical and microbiologic efficacy than placebo. Increasing the proportion of participants with clinical cure or increasing the speed of recovery or both are important for individual return to work or school, allowing people to regain quality of life. Future studies may examine antiseptic treatments with topical antibiotics for reasons of cost and growing antibiotic resistance.

Corticosteroid implants for chronic non-infectious uveitis.

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. We assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.31; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time.  To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for treating cystoid macular edema following cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment  Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I2 = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I2 = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty.  A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I2 = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.

Topical corticosteroids for dry eye.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED), arising from various etiologic factors, leads to tear film instability, ocular surface damage, and neurosensory changes. DED causes symptoms such as ocular dryness, burning, itching, pain, and visual impairment. Given their well-established anti-inflammatory effects, topical steroid preparations have been widely used as a short-term treatment option for DED. Because of potential risks of ocular hypertension, cataracts, and infections associated with the long-term use of topical steroids, published trials comparing the efficacy and safety of topical steroids (versus placebo) have mostly been of short duration (three to eight weeks). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids compared with no treatment, placebo, other steroidal or non-steroidal therapies, or a combination of therapies for DED. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 20 August 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical corticosteroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, were compared with no treatment, artificial tears (AT), vehicles, AT plus tobramycin, or cyclosporine A (CsA). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 22 RCTs conducted in the USA, Italy, Spain, China, South Korea, and India. These RCTs reported outcome data from a total of 4169 participants with DED.  Study characteristics and risk of bias All trials recruited adults aged 18 years or older, except one trial that enrolled children and adolescents aged between 3 and 14 years. Half of these trials involved predominantly female participants (median 79%, interquartile range [IQR] 76% to 80%). On average, each trial enrolled 86 participants (IQR 40 to 158). The treatment duration of topical steroids ranged between one week and three months; trial duration lasted between one week and six months. Eight trials were sponsored exclusively by industry, and four trials were co-sponsored by industry and institutional or governmental funds. We assessed the risk of bias of both subjective and objective outcomes using RoB 2, finding nearly half of the trials to be at high risk of bias associated with selective outcome reporting. Findings Of the 22 trials, 16 evaluated effects of topical steroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, as compared with lubricants (AT, vehicle), AT plus tobramycin, or no treatment. Corticosteroids probably have a small to moderate effect on improving patient-reported symptoms by 0.29 standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.42) as compared with lubricants (moderate certainty evidence). Topical steroids also likely have a small to moderate effect on lowering corneal staining scores by 0.4 SMDs (95% CI 0.18 to 0.62) (moderate certainty evidence). However, steroids may increase tear film break-up time (TBUT) slightly (mean difference [MD] 0.70 s, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; low certainty evidence) but not tear osmolarity (MD 1.60 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -10.47 to 13.67; very low certainty evidence).  Six trials examined topical steroids, either alone or in combination with CsA, against CsA alone. Low certainty evidence indicates that steroid-based interventions may have a small to moderate effect on improving participants' symptoms (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.15), but little to no effect on corneal staining scores (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.35) as compared with CsA. The effect of topical steroids compared to CsA alone on TBUT (MD 0.37 s, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.87) or tear osmolarity (MD 5.80 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -0.94 to 12.54; loteprednol etabonate alone) is uncertain because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life scores. Adverse effects The evidence for adverse ocular effects of topical corticosteroids is very uncertain. Topical corticosteroids may increase participants' risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (risk ratio [RR] 5.96, 95% CI 1.30 to 27.38) as compared with lubricants. However, when compared with CsA, steroids alone or combined with CsA may decrease or increase IOP elevation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.33). It is also uncertain whether topical steroids may increase risk of cataract formation when compared with lubricants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.22), given the short-term use and study duration (four weeks or less) to observe longer-term adverse effects.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence for the specified review outcomes was of moderate to very low certainty, mostly due to high risk of bias associated with selective results reporting. For dry eye patients whose symptoms require anti-inflammatory control, topical corticosteroids probably provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond lubricants, and may provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond CsA. However, the current evidence is less certain about the effects of steroids on improved tear film quality or quantity. The available evidence is also very uncertain regarding the adverse effects of topical corticosteroids on IOP elevation or cataract formation or progression. Future trials should generate high certainty evidence to inform physicians and patients of the optimal treatment strategies with topical corticosteroids in terms of regimen (types, formulations, dosages), duration, and its time-dependent adverse profile.

Prevalence and Incidence of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Dry eye is a common clinical manifestation, a leading cause of eye clinic visits, and a significant societal and personal economic burden in the United States. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain updated estimates of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. Study Selection: A search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The conduct of review followed a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting. Joanna Briggs Institute and Newcastle Ottawa Scale tools were used to assess risk of bias. Data extraction was conducted by 1 reviewer and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were combined in separate meta-analyses using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Summary estimates from meta-analysis of dry eye and MGD prevalence with 95% CI and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI). Results: Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review. Dry eye prevalence was reported by 10 studies, dry eye incidence by 2 studies, and MGD prevalence by 3 studies. Meta-analysis estimated a dry eye prevalence of 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9%-13.1%; 95% PI, 0%-98.9%; 3 studies; 9 808 758 participants) and MGD prevalence of 21.2% (95% CI, 7.2%-48.3%; 95% PI, 0%-100%; 3 studies; 19 648 participants). Dry eye incidence was 3.5% in a population 18 years and older and 7.8% in a population aged 68 years and older. No studies reported MGD incidence. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated uncertainty about the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Population-based epidemiological studies that use consistent and validated definitions of dry eye and MGD are needed for higher-certainty estimates of dry eye and MGD prevalence and incidence in the United States.