Evaluating the efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions for corneal neuropathy: A systematic review.

Corneal neuropathy involves corneal nerve damage that disrupts ocular surface integrity, negatively impacting quality-of-life from pain and impaired vision. Any ocular or systemic condition that damages the trigeminal nerve can lead to corneal neuropathy. However, the condition currently does not have standardized diagnostic criteria or treatment protocols. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for treating corneal neuropathy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated corneal neuropathy treatments were eligible if the intervention(s) was compared to a placebo or active comparator. Comprehensive searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and clinical trial registries from inception to July 2022. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool was used to assess study methodological quality. Certainty of the body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Overall, 20 RCTs were included. Evaluated interventions comprised regenerative therapies (n = 6 studies), dietary supplements (n = 4), anti-glycemic agents (n = 3), combination therapy (n = 3), supportive therapies (n = 2) and systemic pain pharmacotherapies (n = 2). Nine RCTs were judged at high risk of bias for most outcomes. Definitions for corneal neuropathy in the populations varied substantially across studies, consistent with lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria. A diverse range of outcomes were quantified, likely reflecting absence of an agreed core outcome set. There was insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy or safety of any intervention. There was low or very low certainty evidence for several neuroregenerative agents and dietary supplements for improving corneal nerve fiber length in corneal neuropathy due to dry eye disease and diabetes. Low or very low certainty evidence was found for neuroregenerative therapies and dietary supplements not altering corneal immune cell density. This review identifies a need to standardize the clinical definition of corneal neuropathy and define a minimum set of core outcome measures. Together, this will provide a foundation for improved phenotyping of clinical populations in studies, and improve the capacity to synthesize data to inform evidence-based care. Protocol registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022348475.

Blue-light filtering spectacle lenses for visual performance, sleep, and macular health in adults.

BACKGROUND: 'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the eye. Various blue-light filtering lenses are commercially available. Some claims exist that they can improve visual performance with digital device use, provide retinal protection, and promote sleep quality. We investigated clinical trial evidence for these suggested effects, and considered any potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of blue-light filtering lenses compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, for improving visual performance, providing macular protection, and improving sleep quality in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, with no date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants, where blue-light filtering spectacle lenses were compared with non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the change in visual fatigue score and critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF), as continuous outcomes, between baseline and one month of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, discomfort glare, proportion of eyes with a pathological macular finding, colour discrimination, proportion of participants with reduced daytime alertness, serum melatonin levels, subjective sleep quality, and patient satisfaction with their visual performance. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects. We followed standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs, with sample sizes ranging from five to 156 participants, and intervention follow-up periods from less than one day to five weeks. About half of included trials used a parallel-arm design; the rest adopted a cross-over design. A variety of participant characteristics was represented across the studies, ranging from healthy adults to individuals with mental health and sleep disorders. None of the studies had a low risk of bias in all seven Cochrane RoB 1 domains. We judged 65% of studies to have a high risk of bias due to outcome assessors not being masked (detection bias) and 59% to be at high risk of bias of performance bias as participants and personnel were not masked. Thirty-five per cent of studies were pre-registered on a trial registry. We did not perform meta-analyses for any of the outcome measures, due to lack of available quantitative data, heterogenous study populations, and differences in intervention follow-up periods. There may be no difference in subjective visual fatigue scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, at less than one week of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One RCT reported no difference between intervention arms (mean difference (MD) 9.76 units (indicating worse symptoms), 95% confidence interval (CI) -33.95 to 53.47; 120 participants). Further, two studies (46 participants, combined) that measured visual fatigue scores reported no significant difference between intervention arms. There may be little to no difference in CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, measured at less than one day of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One study reported no significant difference between intervention arms (MD - 1.13 Hz lower (indicating poorer performance), 95% CI - 3.00 to 0.74; 120 participants). Another study reported a less negative change in CFF (indicating less visual fatigue) with high- compared to low-blue-light filtering and no blue-light filtering lenses. Compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, there is probably little or no effect with blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance (BCVA) (MD 0.00 logMAR units, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and unknown effects on daytime alertness (2 RCTs, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence); uncertainty in these effects was due to lack of available data and the small number of studies reporting these outcomes. We do not know if blue-light filtering spectacle lenses are equivalent or superior to non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses with respect to sleep quality (very low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent findings were evident across six RCTs (148 participants); three studies reported a significant improvement in sleep scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, and the other three studies reported no significant difference between intervention arms. We noted differences in the populations across studies and a lack of quantitative data. Device-related adverse effects were not consistently reported (9 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reported on adverse events related to study interventions; three studies described the occurrence of such events. Reported adverse events related to blue-light filtering lenses were infrequent, but included increased depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort wearing the glasses, and lower mood. Adverse events associated with non-blue-light filtering lenses were occasional hyperthymia, and discomfort wearing the spectacles. We were unable to determine whether blue-light filtering lenses affect contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels or overall patient visual satisfaction, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, as none of the studies evaluated these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that blue-light filtering spectacle lenses may not attenuate symptoms of eye strain with computer use, over a short-term follow-up period, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Further, this review found no clinically meaningful difference in changes to CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Based on the current best available evidence, there is probably little or no effect of blue-light filtering lenses on BCVA compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses. Potential effects on sleep quality were also indeterminate, with included trials reporting mixed outcomes among heterogeneous study populations. There was no evidence from RCT publications relating to the outcomes of contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction. Future high-quality randomised trials are required to define more clearly the effects of blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance, macular health and sleep, in adult populations.

Identification of presumed corneal neuromas and microneuromas using laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This systematic review critically evaluated peer-reviewed publications describing morphological features consistent with, or using terms related to, a 'neuroma' or 'microneuroma' in the human cornea using laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM). METHODS: The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160038). Comprehensive literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library in November 2019. The review included primary research studies and reviews that described laser-scanning IVCM for examining human corneal nerves. Papers had to include at least one of a pre-specified set of keyword stems, broadly related to neuromas and microneuromas, to describe a corneal nerve feature. RESULTS: Twenty-five papers (20 original studies; 5 reviews) were eligible. Three original studies evaluated corneal nerve features in healthy eyes. Most papers assessed corneal nerves in ocular and systemic conditions; seven studies did not include a control/comparator group. There was overlap in terminology used to describe nerve features in healthy and diseased corneas (eg, bulb-like/bulbous, penetration, end/s/ing). Inspection of IVCM images within the papers revealed that features termed 'neuromas' and 'microneuromas' could potentially be physiological corneal stromal-epithelial nerve penetration sites. We identified inconsistent definitions for terms, and limitations in IVCM image acquisition, sampling and/or reporting that may introduce bias and lead to inaccurate representation of physiological nerve characteristics as pathological. CONCLUSION: These findings identify a need for consistent nomenclature and definitions, and rigorous IVCM scanning and analysis protocols to clarify the prevalence of physiological, as opposed to pathological, corneal nerve features.

Crowdsourcing critical appraisal of research evidence (CrowdCARE) was found to be a valid approach to assessing clinical research quality.

OBJECTIVES: We developed a free, online tool (CrowdCARE: crowdcare.unimelb.edu.au) to crowdsource research critical appraisal. The aim was to examine the validity of this approach for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, a sample of systematic reviews (N = 71), of heterogeneous quality, was critically appraised using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, in CrowdCARE, by five trained novice and two expert raters. After performing independent appraisals, experts resolved any disagreements by consensus (to produce an "expert consensus" rating, as the gold-standard approach). RESULTS: The expert consensus rating was within ±1 (on an 11-point scale) of the individual expert ratings for 82% of studies and was within ±1 of the mean novice rating for 79% of studies. There was a strong correlation (r2 = 0.89, P < 0.0001) and very good concordance (κ = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.61-0.73) between the expert consensus rating and mean novice rating. CONCLUSION: Crowdsourcing can be used to assess the quality of systematic reviews. Novices can be trained to appraise systematic reviews and, on average, achieve a high degree of accuracy relative to experts. These proof-of-concept data demonstrate the merit of crowdsourcing, compared with current gold standards of appraisal, and the potential capacity for this approach to transform evidence-based practice worldwide by sharing the appraisal load.

Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision impairment. It is imperative that AMD care is timely, appropriate, and evidence-based. It is thus essential that AMD systematic reviews are robust; however, little is known about the quality of this literature. Objectives: To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of AMD intervention studies, and to evaluate their use for guiding evidence-based care. Evidence Review: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All studies that self-identified as a systematic review in their title or abstract or were categorized as a systematic review from a medical subject heading and investigated the safety, efficacy and/or effectiveness of an AMD intervention were included. Comprehensive electronic searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Study characteristics (publication year, type of intervention, journal, citation rate, and funding source) were extracted. Findings: Of 983 citations retrieved, 71 studies (7.6%) were deemed eligible. The first systematic review relating to an AMD intervention was published in 2003. More than half were published since 2014. Methodological quality was highly variable. The mean (SD) AMSTAR score was 5.8 (3.2) of 11.0, with no significant improvement over time (r = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.21; P = .83). Cochrane systematic reviews were overall of higher quality than reviews in other journals (mean [SD] AMSTAR score, 9.9 [1.2], n = 15 vs 4.7 [2.2], n = 56; P < .001). Overall, there was poor adherence to referring to an a priori design (22 articles [31%]) and reporting conflicts of interest in both the review and included studies (16 articles [23%]). Reviews funded by government grants and/or institutions were generally of higher quality than industry-sponsored reviews or where the funding source was not reported. Conclusions and Relevance: There are gaps in the conduct of systematic reviews in the field of AMD. Enhanced endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement by refereed journals may improve review quality and improve the dissemination of reliable evidence relating to AMD interventions to clinicians.