Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.

BACKGROUND: Cataract, defined as an opacity of the lens in one or both eyes, is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract may initially be treated with new spectacles, but often surgery is required, which involves removing the cataract and placing a new artificial lens, usually made from hydrophobic acrylic. Recent advancements in intraocular lens (IOL) technology have led to the emergence of a diverse array of implantable lenses that aim to minimise spectacle dependence at all distances (near, intermediate, and distance). To assess the relative merits of these lenses, measurements of visual acuity are needed. Visual acuity is a measurement of the sharpness of vision at a distance of 6 metres (or 20 feet). Normal vision is 6/6 (or 20/20). The Jaegar eye card is used to measure near visual acuity. J1 is the smallest text and J2 is considered equivalent to 6/6 (or 20/20) for near vision. OBJECTIVES: To compare visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to those of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. To produce a brief economic commentary summarising recent economic evaluations that compare trifocal IOLs with EDOF IOLs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries on 15 June 2022. For our economic evaluation, we also searched MEDLINE and Embase using economic search filters to 15 June 2022, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) from 1968 up to and including 31 December 2014. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs in adults undergoing cataract surgery. We did not include studies involving people receiving IOLs for correction of refractive error alone (or refractive lens exchange in the absence of cataract). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the reports. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies that compared trifocal and EDOF lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. Three trifocal lenses (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, ATLISA Tri 839MP, FineVision Micro F) and one EDOF lens (TECNIS Symfony ZXR00) were evaluated. The studies took place in Europe and North America. Follow-up ranged from three to six months. Of the 239 enroled participants, 233 (466 eyes) completed follow-up and were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years, and 64% of participants were female. In general, the risk of bias in the studies was unclear as methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported, and we judged one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as low, downgrading for the risk of bias and for imprecision. In two studies involving a total of 254 people, there was little or no difference between trifocal and EDOF lenses for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6. Sixty per cent of participants in both groups had uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.88 to 1.27). Thirty-one per cent of the trifocal group and 38% of the EDOF group had corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). In one study of 60 people, there were fewer cases of uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2 in the trifocal group (3%) compared with the EDOF group (30%) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65). In two studies, participants were asked about spectacle independence using subjective questionnaires. There was no evidence of either lens type being superior. One further study of 60 participants reported, "overall, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence", but did not categorise this by lens type. All studies included postoperative patient-reported visual function, which was measured using different questionnaires. Irrespective of the questionnaire used, both types of lenses scored well, and there was little evidence of any important differences between them. Two studies included patient-reported ocular aberrations (glare and halos). The outcomes were reported in different ways and could not be pooled; individually, these studies were too small to detect meaningful differences in glare and halos between groups. One study reported no surgical complications. Three studies did not mention surgical complications. One study reported YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in one participant (one eye) in each group. One study reported no PCO. Two studies did not report PCO. One study reported that three participants (one trifocal and two EDOF) underwent laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) to correct residual myopic refractive error or astigmatism. One study reported a subset of participants who were considering laser enhancement at the end of the study period (nine trifocal and two EDOF). Two studies did not report laser enhancement rates. No economic evaluation studies were identified for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Distance visual acuity after cataract surgery may be similar whether the lenses implanted are trifocal IOLs or EDOF (TECNIS Symfony) IOLs. People receiving trifocal IOLs may achieve better near vision and may be less dependent on spectacles for near vision. Both lenses were reported to have adverse subjective visual phenomena, such as glare and halos, with no meaningful difference detected between lenses.

Approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services in community and primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Uncorrected refractive error is a leading cause of vision impairment which, in most cases, can be managed with the appropriate spectacle correction. In 2021, the World Health Assembly endorsed a global target of a 40-percentage-point increase in effective coverage of refractive error by 2030. To achieve this global target, equitable access to refractive and optical services within community and primary care settings needs to be strengthened. This review will inform the development of technical guidance to support improvements in the testing and correction of refractive error among World Health Organization (WHO) member states. OBJECTIVES: To determine the range of approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services in community and primary care settings, and the methods employed for their evaluation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health databases, grey literature, and annual reports and websites of relevant organizations involved in eye-care delivery from January 2002 to November 2022 to identify approaches for refractive and optical service delivery. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included observational and interventional studies, reviews, and reports from relevant organizations related to delivering refractive services and optical services for preschool and school-aged children and adults in community and primary care settings published between January 2002 and November 2022. We searched for studies and reports published within the last 20 years because vision impairment due to uncorrected refractive error has only recently become a public health and eye health priority, therefore we did not expect to find much relevant literature until after 2002. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We synthesized data, and presented results as tables, figures, and case studies. This project was led by the World Health Organization (WHO) Vision and Eye Care Programme. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 175 studies from searches of databases and grey literature, 146 records from company reports, and 81 records from website searches of relevant organizations that matched our inclusion criteria. Delivery approaches for refractive and optical services in community care included school-based, pharmacy, and outreach models, whereas primary care approaches comprised vision centre, health centre, and a combination of vision or health centre and door-to-door delivery. In community care, school-based and outreach approaches were predominant, while in primary care, a vision-centre approach was mainly used. In the WHO African region, the school-based and outreach approaches were mainly reported while, in the Americas, the outreach approach was mostly used. Very few approaches for service delivery were reported in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Prominent gaps exist in the evaluation of the approaches, and few studies attempted to evaluate the approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We comprehensively describe a range of approaches for delivery of refractive and optical services in community and primary care. Further evaluation of their effectiveness will better inform the application of these service-delivery approaches. The study outcomes will help guide WHO member states in strengthening refractive and optical services at community and primary care levels. FUNDING: This scoping review was supported by the Vision and Eye care Programme, World Health Organization and ATscale Global Partnership. REGISTRATION: The protocol of this scoping review was published in the Open Source Framework.

Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a degenerative condition of the back of the eye that occurs in people over the age of 50 years. Antioxidants may prevent cellular damage in the retina by reacting with free radicals that are produced in the process of light absorption. Higher dietary levels of antioxidant vitamins and minerals may reduce the risk of progression of AMD. This is the third update of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements on the progression of AMD in people with AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and three trials registers, most recently on 29 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplementation to placebo or no intervention, in people with AMD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies conducted in the USA, Europe, China, and Australia. These studies enroled 11,952 people aged 65 to 75 years and included slightly more women (on average 56% women). We judged the studies that contributed data to the review to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Thirteen studies compared multivitamins with control in people with early and intermediate AMD. Most evidence came from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) in the USA. People taking antioxidant vitamins were less likely to progress to late AMD (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 3 studies, 2445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In people with early AMD, who are at low risk of progression, this means there would be approximately four fewer cases of progression to late AMD for every 1000 people taking vitamins (one fewer to six fewer cases). In people with intermediate AMD at higher risk of progression, this corresponds to approximately 78 fewer cases of progression for every 1000 people taking vitamins (26 fewer to 126 fewer). AREDS also provided evidence of a lower risk of progression for both neovascular AMD (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence) and geographic atrophy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), and a lower risk of losing 3 or more lines of visual acuity (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 110 people suggested higher quality of life scores (measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire) in treated compared with non-treated people after 24 months (mean difference (MD) 12.30, 95% CI 4.24 to 20.36). In exploratory subgroup analyses in the follow-on study to AREDS (AREDS2), replacing beta-carotene with lutein/zeaxanthin gave hazard ratios (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.96), 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94), 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.26), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.03) for progression to late AMD, neovascular AMD, geographic atrophy, and vision loss, respectively. Six studies compared lutein (with or without zeaxanthin) with placebo and one study compared a multivitamin including lutein/zeaxanthin with multivitamin alone. The duration of supplementation and follow-up ranged from six months to five years. Most evidence came from the AREDS2 study in the USA; almost all participants in AREDS2 also took the original AREDS supplementation formula. People taking lutein/zeaxanthin may have similar or slightly reduced risk of progression to late AMD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), neovascular AMD (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02), and geographic atrophy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05) compared with control (1 study, 4176 participants, 6891 eyes; low-certainty evidence). A similar risk of progression to visual loss of 15 or more letters was seen in the lutein/zeaxanthin and control groups (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 6656 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (Visual Function Questionnaire) was similar between groups (MD 1.21, 95% CI -2.59 to 5.01; 2 studies, 308 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One study in Australia randomised 1204 people to vitamin E or placebo with four years of follow-up; 19% of participants had AMD. The number of late AMD events was low (N = 7) and the estimate of effect was uncertain (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.05; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any effect of treatment on visual loss (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on neovascular AMD, geographic atrophy, or quality of life. Five studies compared zinc with placebo. Evidence largely drawn from the largest study (AREDS) found a lower progression to late AMD over six years (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 3 studies, 3790 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), neovascular AMD (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence), geographic atrophy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), or visual loss (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 2 studies, 3791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no data on quality of life. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the main reported adverse effect. In AREDS, zinc was associated with a higher risk of genitourinary problems in men, but no difference was seen between high- and low-dose zinc groups in AREDS2. Most studies were too small to detect rare adverse effects. Data from larger studies (AREDS/AREDS2) suggested there may be little or no effect on mortality with multivitamin (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence) or lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence), but confirmed the increased risk of lung cancer with beta-carotene, mostly in former smokers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplementation (AREDS: vitamin C, E, beta-carotene, and zinc) probably slows down progression to late AMD. People with intermediate AMD have a higher chance of benefiting from antioxidant supplements because their risk of progression is higher than people with early AMD. Although low-certainty evidence suggested little effect with lutein/zeaxanthin alone compared with placebo, exploratory subgroup analyses from one large American study support the view that lutein/zeaxanthin may be a suitable replacement for the beta-carotene used in the original AREDS formula.

Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world and, as such, cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed operations globally. Surgical techniques have changed dramatically over the past half century with associated improvements in outcomes and safety. Femtosecond lasers can be used to perform the key steps in cataract surgery, such as corneal incisions, lens capsulotomy and fragmentation. The potential advantage of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is greater precision and reproducibility of these steps compared to manual techniques. The disadvantages are the costs associated with FLACS technology. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of FLACS with standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS) by gathering evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 10 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs where FLACS was compared to PCS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome for this review was intraoperative complications in the operated eye, namely anterior capsule, and posterior capsule tears. The secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), quality of vision (as measured by any validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)), postoperative cystoid macular oedema complications, endothelial cell loss and cost-effectiveness. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 RCTs conducted in Europe, North America, South America and Asia, which enrolled a total of 7298 eyes of 5831 adult participants. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. In 16 studies the authors reported financial links with the manufacturer of the laser platform evaluated in their studies. Thirteen of the studies were within-person (paired-eye) studies with one eye allocated to one procedure and the other eye allocated to the other procedure. These studies were reported ignoring the paired nature of the data. There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the odds of developing anterior capsular tears when comparing FLACS and PCS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.72; 5835 eyes, 27 studies) There was one fewer anterior capsule tear per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 4 fewer to 3 more).  There was low-certainty evidence of lower odds of developing posterior capsular tears with FLACS compared to PCS (Peto OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00; 5767 eyes, 26 studies). There were four fewer posterior capsule tears per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 6 fewer to same).  There was moderate-certainty evidence of a very small advantage for the FLACS arm with regard to CDVA at six months or more follow-up, (mean difference (MD) -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 1323 eyes, 7 studies). This difference is equivalent to 1 logMAR letter between groups and is not thought to be clinically important. From the three studies (1205 participants) reporting a variety of PROMs (Cat-PROMS, EQ-5D, EQ-SD-3L, Catquest9-SF and patient survey) up to three months following surgery, there was moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the various parameters between the two treatment arms. There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the odds of developing cystoid macular oedema when comparing FLACS and PCS (Peto OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; 4441 eyes, 18 studies). There were three fewer cystoid macular oedema cases per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 10 fewer to 6 more).  In one study the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (cost difference divided by quality-adjusted life year (QALY) difference) was GBP £167,620 when comparing FLACS to PCS. In another study, the ICER was EUR €10,703 saved per additional patient who had treatment success with PCS compared to FLACS. Duration ranged from three minutes in favour of FLACS to eight minutes in favour of PCS (I2 = 100%, 11 studies) (low-certainty evidence).  There was low-certainty evidence of little or no important difference in endothelial cell loss when comparing FLACS with PCS (MD 12 cells per mm2 in favour of FLACS, 95% CI -40 to 64; 1512 eyes, 10 studies).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of 42 studies provides evidence that there is probably little or no difference between FLACS and PCS in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative visual acuity and quality of life. Evidence from two studies suggests that FLACS may be the less cost-effective option. Many of the included studies only investigated very specific outcome measures such as effective phacoemulsification time, endothelial cell count change or aqueous flare, rather than those directly related to patient outcomes. Standardised reporting of complications and visual and refractive outcomes for cataract surgery would facilitate future synthesis, and guidance on this has been recently published.

ANTECEDENTES: La catarata es la principal causa de ceguera en el mundo y, como tal, la cirugía de cataratas es una de las operaciones más realizadas en todo el mundo. Las técnicas quirúrgicas han cambiado radicalmente en el último medio siglo, con las consiguientes mejoras en los desenlaces y la seguridad. Los láseres de femtosegundo se pueden utilizar para realizar los pasos clave de la cirugía de cataratas, como las incisiones corneales, la capsulotomía y la fragmentación del cristalino. La ventaja potencial de la cirugía de cataratas asistida por láser de femtosegundo (FLACS por sus siglas en inglés) es la mayor precisión y reproducibilidad de estos pasos en comparación con las técnicas manuales. Las desventajas son los costes asociados con la tecnología FLACS. OBJETIVOS: Comparar la eficacia y la seguridad de la FLACS con la cirugía de cataratas estándar por facoemulsificación (PCS) con ultrasonido mediante la recopilación de evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA). MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]; que contiene el Registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Salud ocular y de la visión [Cochrane Eyes and Vision]; 2022, número 5); en Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; el registro ISRCTN; ClinicalTrials.gov; la ICTRP de la OMS y el sitio web de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) de los EE. UU. No se aplicaron restricciones de fecha ni de idioma en las búsquedas electrónicas de ensayos. La última búsqueda en las bases de datos electrónicas se realizó el 10 de mayo de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los ECA en los que la FLACS se comparó con la PCS. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Tres autores de la revisión examinaron de forma independiente los resultados de la búsqueda, evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo y extrajeron los datos mediante los procedimientos metodológicos estándar previstos por Cochrane. El desenlace principal de esta revisión fueron las complicaciones intraoperatorias en el ojo operado, concretamente, desgarros de la cápsula anterior y posterior. Los desenlaces secundarios incluyeron la agudeza visual corregida a distancia (AVCD), la calidad de la visión (medida por cualquier medida de desenlace notificada por el paciente [PROM] validada), las complicaciones posoperatorias del edema macular cistoide, la pérdida de células endoteliales y la coste­efectividad. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante el método GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 42 ECA realizados en Europa, Norteamérica, Sudamérica y Asia, que reclutaron un total de 7298 ojos de 5831 participantes adultos. En general, los estudios tuvieron riesgo de sesgo incierto o alto. En 16 estudios, los autores informaron vínculos financieros con el fabricante de la plataforma láser evaluada en sus estudios. Trece de los estudios fueron estudios intrapersonales (ojo pareado) con un ojo asignado a un procedimiento y el otro ojo asignado al otro procedimiento. El informe de estos estudios no consideró la naturaleza pareada de los datos. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de poca o ninguna diferencia en las probabilidades de desarrollar desgarros de la cápsula anterior al comparar FLACS y PCS (odds ratio [OR] de Peto 0,83; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,40 a 1,72; 5835 ojos, 27 estudios). Hubo un desgarro de la cápsula anterior menos por cada 1000 cirugías en el grupo de FLACS en comparación con el grupo de PCS (IC del 95%: 4 menos a 3 más).  Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de menores probabilidades de desarrollar desgarros de la cápsula posterior con FLACS en comparación con PCS (OR de Peto 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,25 a 1,00; 5767 ojos, 26 estudios). Hubo cuatro desgarros de la cápsula posterior menos por cada 1000 cirugías en el grupo de FLACS en comparación con el grupo de PCS (IC del 95%: 6 menos a igual).  Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de una ventaja muy pequeña en el grupo de FLACS con respecto a la AVCD a los seis meses o más de seguimiento, (diferencia de medias [DM] ­0,01 logMAR; IC del 95%: ­0,02 a 0,00; 1323 ojos, siete estudios). Esta diferencia equivale a 1 letra logMAR entre los grupos y no se considera clínicamente importante. De los tres estudios (1205 participantes) que informaron sobre una variedad de PROM (Cat­PROMS, EQ­5D, EQ­SD­3L, Catquest9­SF y encuesta de pacientes) hasta tres meses después de la cirugía, hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de poca o ninguna diferencia en los diversos parámetros entre los dos grupos de tratamiento. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de poca o ninguna diferencia en las probabilidades de desarrollar edema macular cistoide al comparar FLACS y PCS (OR de Peto 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,56 a 1,28; 4441 ojos, 18 estudios). Hubo tres casos menos de edema macular cistoide por cada 1000 cirugías en el grupo de FLACS en comparación con el grupo de PCS (IC del 95%: 10 menos a 6 más).  En un estudio, el cociente coste­efectividad incremental (ICER) (diferencia de coste dividida por la diferencia de años de vida ajustados por la calidad [AVAC]) fue de 167 620 GBP al comparar FLACS con SCP. En otro estudio, el ICER fue de 10 703 euros ahorrados por paciente adicional que tuvo un tratamiento exitoso con PCS en comparación con FLACS. La duración varió entre tres minutos a favor de FLACS y ocho minutos a favor de PCS (I 2 = 100%, 11 estudios) (evidencia de certeza baja).  Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de poca o ninguna diferencia importante en la pérdida de células endoteliales al comparar la FLACS con la PCS (DM 12 células por mm 2 a favor de la FLACS; IC del 95%: ­40 a 64; 1512 ojos, 10 estudios).  CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Esta revisión de 42 estudios aporta evidencia de que probablemente haya poca o ninguna diferencia entre la FLACS y la PCS en cuanto a las complicaciones intraoperatorias y posoperatorias, la agudeza visual posoperatoria y la calidad de vida. La evidencia de dos estudios indica que la FLACS podría ser la opción menos coste­efectiva. Muchos de los estudios incluidos solo investigaron medidas de desenlace muy específicas, como el tiempo efectivo de facoemulsificación, el cambio en el recuento de células endoteliales o el brote acuoso, en lugar de las directamente relacionadas con los desenlaces de los pacientes. La notificación estandarizada de las complicaciones y los desenlaces visuales y refractarios de la cirugía de cataratas facilitaría la síntesis futura, y recientemente se han publicado guías al respecto.

Prognostic factors for the development and progression of proliferative diabetic retinopathy in people with diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is characterised by neurovascular degeneration as a result of chronic hyperglycaemia. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is the most serious complication of DR and can lead to total (central and peripheral) visual loss. PDR is characterised by the presence of abnormal new blood vessels, so-called "new vessels," at the optic disc (NVD) or elsewhere in the retina (NVE). PDR can progress to high-risk characteristics (HRC) PDR (HRC-PDR), which is defined by the presence of NVD more than one-fourth to one-third disc area in size plus vitreous haemorrhage or pre-retinal haemorrhage, or vitreous haemorrhage or pre-retinal haemorrhage obscuring more than one disc area. In severe cases, fibrovascular membranes grow over the retinal surface and tractional retinal detachment with sight loss can occur, despite treatment. Although most, if not all, individuals with diabetes will develop DR if they live long enough, only some progress to the sight-threatening PDR stage.  OBJECTIVES: To determine risk factors for the development of PDR and HRC-PDR in people with diabetes and DR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The date of the search was 27 May 2022. Additionally, the search was supplemented by screening reference lists of eligible articles. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective or retrospective cohort studies and case-control longitudinal studies evaluating prognostic factors for the development and progression of PDR, in people who have not had previous treatment for DR. The target population consisted of adults (≥18 years of age) of any gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographical location, with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) or PDR with less than HRC-PDR, diagnosed as per standard clinical practice. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full-text articles, to determine eligibility; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We considered prognostic factors measured at baseline and any other time points during the study and in any clinical setting. Outcomes were evaluated at three and eight years (± two years) or lifelong.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form that we developed and piloted prior to the data collection stage. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We used the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool to assess risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses in clinically relevant groups using a random-effects approach. We reported hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) separately for each available prognostic factor and outcome, stratified by different time points. Where possible, we meta-analysed adjusted prognostic factors. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence with an adapted version of the GRADE framework.   MAIN RESULTS: We screened 6391 records. From these, we identified 59 studies (87 articles) as eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five were prospective cohort studies, 22 were retrospective studies, 18 of which were cohort and six were based on data from electronic registers, and two were retrospective case-control studies. Twenty-three studies evaluated participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 19 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and 17 included mixed populations (T1D and T2D). Studies on T1D included between 39 and 3250 participants at baseline, followed up for one to 45 years. Studies on T2D included between 100 and 71,817 participants at baseline, followed up for one to 20 years. The studies on mixed populations of T1D and T2D ranged from 76 to 32,553 participants at baseline, followed up for four to 25 years.  We found evidence indicating that higher glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)) levels (adjusted OR ranged from 1.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.32) to 2.10 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.69) and more advanced stages of retinopathy (adjusted OR ranged from 1.38 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.48) to 12.40 (95% CI 5.31 to 28.98) are independent risk factors for the development of PDR in people with T1D and T2D. We rated the evidence for these factors as of moderate certainty because of moderate to high risk of bias in the studies.  There was also some evidence suggesting several markers for renal disease (for example, nephropathy (adjusted OR ranged from 1.58 (95% CI not reported) to 2.68 (2.09 to 3.42), and creatinine (adjusted meta-analysis HR 1.61 (95% CI 0.77 to 3.36)), and, in people with T1D, age at diagnosis of diabetes (< 12 years of age) (standardised regression estimate 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48), increased triglyceride levels (adjusted RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.95), and larger retinal venular diameters (RR 4.28, 95% CI 1.50 to 12.19) may increase the risk of progression to PDR. The certainty of evidence for these factors, however, was low to very low, due to risk of bias in the included studies, inconsistency (lack of studies preventing the grading of consistency or variable outcomes), and imprecision (wide CIs). There was no substantial and consistent evidence to support duration of diabetes, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low- (LDL) and high- (HDL) density lipoproteins, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status, or tobacco and alcohol consumption as being associated with incidence of PDR. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate prognostic factors associated with progression of PDR to HRC-PDR.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Increased HbA1c is likely to be associated with progression to PDR; therefore, maintaining adequate glucose control throughout life, irrespective of stage of DR severity, may help to prevent progression to PDR and risk of its sight-threatening complications. Renal impairment in people with T1D or T2D, as well as younger age at diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), increased triglyceride levels, and increased retinal venular diameters in people with T1D may also be associated with increased risk of progression to PDR. Given that more advanced DR severity is associated with higher risk of progression to PDR, the earlier the disease is identified, and the above systemic risk factors are controlled, the greater the chance of reducing the risk of PDR and saving sight.

ANTECEDENTES: La retinopatía diabética (RD) se caracteriza por la degeneración neurovascular como consecuencia de la hiperglucemia crónica. La retinopatía diabética proliferativa (RDP) es la complicación más grave de la RD y puede provocar una pérdida total (central y periférica) de la visión. La RDP se caracteriza por la presencia de vasos sanguíneos de neoformación anormales, neovascularización, en la papila óptica (NVP) o en cualquier otra parte de la retina (NVE). La RDP puede evolucionar a una RDP con características de alto riesgo (RDP­CAR), que se define por la presencia de NVP de más de un cuarto a un tercio del área discal más hemorragia vítrea o prerretiniana, o hemorragia vítrea o prerretiniana que oscurece más de un área papilar. En los casos graves, crecen membranas fibrovasculares sobre la superficie retiniana y se puede producir un desprendimiento de retina por tracción con pérdida de la visión, a pesar del tratamiento. Aunque la mayoría de las personas con diabetes, si no todas, desarrollarán RD si viven lo suficiente, solo algunas llegan a la fase de RDP, que pone en peligro la vista. OBJETIVOS: Determinar los factores de riesgo de aparición de la RDP y RDP­CAR en personas con diabetes y RD. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL; que contiene el Registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Salud ocular y de la visión [Cochrane Eyes and Vision]; 2022, número 5), Ovid MEDLINE y Ovid Embase. La fecha de búsqueda fue el 27 de mayo de 2022. Además, la búsqueda se complementó con el cribado de las listas de referencias de los artículos elegibles. No hubo restricciones en cuanto al idioma ni al año de publicación. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron estudios de cohortes prospectivos o retrospectivos y estudios longitudinales de casos y controles que evaluaran los factores pronósticos para la aparición y la progresión de la RDP, en personas que no habían recibido tratamiento previo para la RD. La población de interés estaba formada por adultos (≥18 años de edad) de cualquier sexo, orientación sexual, etnia, nivel socioeconómico y ubicación geográfica, con retinopatía diabética no proliferativa (RDNP) o RDP sin llegar a RDP­CAR, diagnosticada según la práctica clínica habitual. Dos autores de la revisión examinaron de forma independiente los títulos y resúmenes, así como los artículos completos, para determinar la elegibilidad; las discrepancias se resolvieron mediante debate. Se tuvieron en cuenta los factores pronósticos medidos al inicio del estudio y en cualquier otro punto temporal durante el estudio y en cualquier contexto clínico. Los desenlaces se evaluaron a los tres y ocho años (± dos años) o de por vida. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión extrajeron de forma independiente los datos de los estudios incluidos mediante un formulario de extracción de datos que se desarrolló y evaluó antes de la etapa de obtención de datos. Las discrepancias se resolvieron mediante debate. Para evaluar el riesgo de sesgo se utilizó la herramienta Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Se realizaron metanálisis en grupos clínicamente relevantes utilizando un enfoque de efectos aleatorios. Se proporcionaron los cociente de riesgos instantáneos (CRI), los odds ratios (OR) y las razones de riesgos (RR) por separado para cada factor pronóstico y desenlace disponibles, estratificados por diferentes puntos temporales. Cuando fue posible, se realizó un metanálisis de los factores pronósticos ajustados. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó con una versión adaptada del método GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se han examinado 6391 registros. A partir de estos se identificaron 59 estudios (87 artículos) elegibles para inclusión. Treinta y cinco fueron estudios de cohortes prospectivos, 22 fueron estudios retrospectivos, 18 de los cuales fueron de cohortes y 6 se basaron en datos de registros electrónicos, y 2 fueron estudios retrospectivos de casos y controles. Veintitrés estudios evaluaron a participantes con diabetes tipo 1 (DT1), 19 con diabetes tipo 2 (DT2) y 17 incluyeron poblaciones mixtas (DT1 y DT2). Los estudios sobre la DT1 incluyeron entre 39 y 3250 participantes al inicio del estudio, con un seguimiento de 1 a 45 años. Los estudios sobre la DT2 incluyeron entre 100 y 71 817 participantes al inicio del estudio, con un seguimiento de 1 a 20 años. Los estudios sobre poblaciones mixtas de DT1 y DT2 variaron entre 76 y 32 553 participantes al inicio del estudio, con un seguimiento de 4 a 25 años. Se encontró evidencia que indicó que los niveles más altos de hemoglobina glucosilada (hemoglobina A1c [HbA1c]) (OR ajustado que varió de 1,11 [intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%: 0,93 a 1,32] a 2,10 [IC del 95%: 1,64 a 2,69]) y los estadios más avanzados de retinopatía (OR ajustado que varió entre 1,38 [IC del 95%: 1,29 a 1,48] y 12,40 [IC del 95%: 5,31 a 28,98]) son factores de riesgo independientes para el desarrollo de RDP en personas con DT1 y DT2. La evidencia para estos factores se consideró de certeza moderada debido al riesgo moderado a alto de sesgo en los estudios. También hubo alguna evidencia que indicó varios marcadores de enfermedad renal (por ejemplo, nefropatía [OR ajustado que varió entre 1,58 (IC del 95% no proporcionado) y 2,68 (2,09 a 3,42)] y creatinina [metanálisis ajustado CRI 1,61 (IC del 95%: 0,77 a 3.36)]), y, en las personas con DT1, la edad en el momento del diagnóstico de la diabetes (< 12 años) (estimación de la regresión estandarizada 1,62; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 2,48), el aumento de los niveles de triglicéridos (RR ajustado 1,55; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 1,95) y los diámetros venulares retinianos mayores (RR 4,28; IC del 95%: 1,50 a 12,19) podrían aumentar el riesgo de progresión a RDP. Sin embargo, la certeza de la evidencia para estos factores fue de baja a muy baja, debido al riesgo de sesgo en los estudios incluidos, la inconsistencia (falta de estudios que impide la calificación de consistencia o desenlaces variables) y la imprecisión (IC amplios). No hubo evidencia importante ni consistente que apoyara que la duración de la diabetes, la presión arterial sistólica o diastólica, el colesterol total, las lipoproteínas de baja (LDL) y alta (HDL) densidad, el sexo, el origen étnico, el índice de masa corporal (IMC), el nivel socioeconómico o el consumo de tabaco y alcohol estuvieran asociados con la incidencia de RDP. No hubo evidencia suficiente para evaluar los factores pronósticos asociados con la progresión de la RDP a RDP­CAR. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Es probable que el aumento de la HbA1c se asocie con la progresión a la RDP; por lo tanto, mantener un control adecuado de la glucosa durante toda la vida, independientemente del estadio de gravedad de la RD, podría ayudar a prevenir la progresión a la RDP y el riesgo de sus complicaciones que ponen en peligro la vista. La insuficiencia renal en personas con DT1 o DT2, así como una menor edad en el momento del diagnóstico de la diabetes mellitus (DM), el aumento de los niveles de triglicéridos y el aumento de los diámetros venulares retinianos en personas con DT1 también se podrían asociar con un mayor riesgo de progresión a RDP. Dado que la gravedad más avanzada de la RD se asocia con un mayor riesgo de progresión a RDP, cuanto antes se identifique la enfermedad y se controlen los factores de riesgo sistémicos mencionados, mayores serán las posibilidades de reducir el riesgo de RDP y conservar la vista.

Laser trabeculoplasty for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Laser trabeculoplasty, a treatment modality, still does not have a clear position in the treatment sequence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of laser trabeculoplasty for treating OAG and ocular hypertension (OHT) when compared to medication, glaucoma surgery or no intervention. We also wished to compare the effectiveness of different laser trabeculoplasty technologies for treating OAG and OHT. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 28 October 2021. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laser trabeculoplasty with no intervention, with medical treatment, or with surgery in people with OAG or OHT. We also included trials comparing different types of laser trabeculoplasty technologies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors screened search results and extracted data independently. We considered the following outcomes at 24 months: failure to control intraocular pressure (IOP), failure to stabilise visual field progression, failure to stabilise optic neuropathy progression, adverse effects, quality of life, and costs. We graded the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 studies (5613 eyes of 4028 people) in this review. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe and in the USA. Most of the studies were at risk of performance and/or detection bias as they were unmasked. None of the studies were judged as having low risk of bias for all domains. We did not identify any studies of laser trabeculoplasty alone versus no intervention. Laser trabeculoplasty versus medication Fourteen studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with medication in either people with primary OAG (7 studies) or primary or secondary OAG (7 studies); five of the 14 studies also included participants with OHT. Six studies used argon laser trabeculoplasty and eight studies used selective laser trabeculoplasty. There was considerable clinical and methodological diversity in these studies leading to statistical heterogeneity in results for the primary outcome "failure to control IOP" at 24 months.  Risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.43 in favour of laser trabeculoplasty to 1.87 in favour of medication (5 studies, I2 = 89%). Studies of argon laser compared with medication were more likely to show a beneficial effect compared with studies of selective laser (test for interaction P = 0.0001) but the argon laser studies were older and the medication comparator group in those studies may have been less effective. We considered this to be low-certainty evidence because the trials were at risk of bias (they were not masked) and there was unexplained heterogeneity. There was evidence from two studies (624 eyes) that argon laser treatment was associated with less failure to stabilise visual field progression compared with medication (7% versus 11%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.16) at 24 months and one further large recent study of selective laser also reported a reduced risk of failure at 48 months (17% versus 26%) RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81, 1178 eyes). We judged this outcome as moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. There was only very low-certainty evidence on optic neuropathy progression. Adverse effects were more commonly seen in the laser trabeculoplasty group including peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) associated with argon laser (32% versus 26%, RR 11.74, 95% CI 5.94 to 23.22; 624 eyes; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence); 5% of participants treated with laser in three studies of selective laser group had early IOP spikes (moderate-certainty evidence). One UK-based study provided moderate-certainty evidence that laser trabeculoplasty was more cost-effective.  Laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy Three studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with trabeculectomy. All three studies enrolled participants with OAG (primary or secondary) and used argon laser. People receiving laser trabeculoplasty may have a higher risk of uncontrolled IOP at 24 months compared with people receiving trabeculectomy (16% versus 8%, RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.11; 901 eyes; 2 RCTs). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias (trials were not masked) and there was inconsistency between the two trials (I2 = 68%). There was limited evidence on visual field progression suggesting a higher risk of failure with laser trabeculoplasty. There was no information on optic neuropathy progression, quality of life or costs. PAS formation and IOP spikes were not reported but in one study trabeculectomy was associated with an increased risk of cataract (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.16) (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laser trabeculoplasty may work better than topical medication in slowing down the progression of open-angle glaucoma (rate of visual field loss) and may be similar to modern eye drops in controlling eye pressure at a lower cost. It is not associated with serious unwanted effects, particularly for the newer types of trabeculoplasty, such as selective laser trabeculoplasty.

Identification and critical appraisal of evidence for interventions for refractive error to support the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) to support the integration of eye health care into national health programmes. Interventions included in the PECI should be based on robust evidence where available. Refractive error is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment and is a PECI priority condition. The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence to support the development of the PECI by identifying and critically appraising clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and extracting recommendations for refractive error interventions. METHODS: We searched for CPGs on refractive error published in the last 10 years. We conducted the searches initially in February and March 2019 and repeated them in March 2020. We evaluated the quality of potentially relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: We identified 12 high-quality CPGs relevant to refractive error, written by six organisations from three high-income countries. Organisations used a variety of frameworks to assess the strength of recommendations based on available evidence, with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) being most common. Vision screening for children aged 3 to 5 years was recommended consistently. Evidence for screening and eye evaluations at other ages was weaker, although ophthalmic professional organisations consistently recommended regular evaluations. Recommendations on optical and laser correction of refractive error were limited and did not consider implications for low resource settings. Interventions for slowing myopia progression in children were recommended, but these will need regular updating as new evidence emerges. CONCLUSIONS: Current high-quality guidelines on refractive error have been formulated in high-income countries. Recommendations focused on prevention and treatment of refractive error in low-and middle-income countries are lacking. Regular updating of systematic reviews and CPGs is essential to ensure that robust evidence is promptly appraised and incorporated into recommendations for eye health care practitioners.

Intraocular lens optic edge design for the prevention of posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) is a clouding of the posterior part of the lens capsule, a skin-like transparent structure, which surrounds the crystalline lens in the human eye. PCO is the most common postoperative complication following modern cataract surgery with implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL). The main symptoms of PCO are a decrease in visual acuity, 'cloudy', blurred vision and reduced contrast sensitivity. PCO is treated with a neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) laser to create a small opening in the opaque capsule and regain a clear central visual axis. This capsulotomy might cause further ocular complications, such as raised intraocular pressure or swelling of the central retina (macular oedema). This procedure is also a significant financial burden for health care systems worldwide. In recent decades, there have been advances in the selection of IOL materials and optimisation of IOL designs to help prevent PCO formation after cataract surgery. These include changes to the side structures holding the lens in the centre of the lens capsule bag, called IOL haptics, and IOL optic edge designs. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different IOL optic edge designs on PCO after cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS), the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 17 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different types of IOL optic edge design. Our prespecified primary outcome was the proportion of eyes with Nd:YAG capsulotomy one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included PCO score, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and quality of life score at one year. Due to availability of important long-term data, we also presented data at longer-term follow-up which is a post hoc change to our protocol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies (1065 people, 1834 eyes) that compared sharp- and round-edged IOLs. Eight of these studies were within-person studies whereby one eye received a sharp-edged IOL and the fellow eye a round-edged IOL. The IOL materials were acrylic (2 studies), silicone (4 studies), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, 3 studies) and different materials (1 study). The studies were conducted in Austria, Germany, India, Japan, Sweden and the UK. Five studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias in all domains. There were few cases of Nd:YAG capsulotomy at one year (primary outcome): 1/371 in sharp-edged and 4/371 in round-edged groups. The effect estimate was in favour of sharp-edged IOLs but the confidence intervals were very wide and compatible with higher or lower chance of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in sharp-edged compared with round-edged lenses (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 742 eyes). This corresponds to seven fewer cases of Nd:YAG capsulotomy per 1000 sharp-edged IOLs inserted compared with round-edged IOLs (95% CI 9 fewer to 7 more). We judged this as low-certainty evidence, downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias. A similar reduced risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in sharp-edge compared with round-edge IOLs was seen at two, three and five years but as the number of Nd:YAG capsulotomy events increased with longer follow-up this effect was more precisely measured at longer follow-up: two years, risk ratio (RR) 0.35 (0.16 to 0.80); 703 eyes (6 studies); 89 fewer cases per 1000; three years, RR 0.21 (0.11 to 0.41); 538 eyes (6 studies); 170 fewer cases per 1000; five years, RR 0.21 (0.10 to 0.45); 306 eyes (4 studies); 331 fewer cases per 1000. Data at 9 years and 12 years were only available from one study. All studies reported a PCO score. Four studies reported the AQUA (Automated Quantification of After-Cataract) score, four studies reported the EPCO (Evaluation of PCO) score and two studies reported another method of quantifying PCO. It was not possible to pool these data due to the way they were reported, but all studies consistently reported a statistically significant lower average PCO score (of the order of 0.5 to 3 units) with sharp-edged IOLs compared with round-edged IOLs. We judged this to be moderate-certainty evidence downgrading for risk of bias. The logMAR visual acuity score was lower (better) in eyes that received a sharp-edged IOL but the difference was small and likely to be clinically unimportant at one year (mean difference (MD) -0.06 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to 0; 2 studies, 153 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Similar effects were seen at longer follow-up periods but non-statistically significant data were less fully reported: two years MD -0.01 logMAR (-0.05 to 0.02); 2 studies, 311 eyes; three years MD -0.09 logMAR (-0.22 to 0.03); 2 studies, 117 eyes; data at five years only available from one study. None of the studies reported quality of life. Very low-certainty evidence on adverse events did not suggest any important differences between the groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that sharp-edged IOLs are likely to be associated with less PCO formation than round-edged IOLs, with less Nd:YAG capsulotomy. The effects on visual acuity were less certain. The impact of these lenses on quality of life has not been assessed and there are only very low-certainty comparative data on adverse events.

Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy has been proposed as a treatment for new vessel growth in people with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of radiotherapy on neovascular AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and three trials registers and checked references of included studies. We last searched the databases on 4 May 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials in which radiotherapy was compared to another treatment, sham treatment, low dosage irradiation or no treatment in people with choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to AMD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We considered the following outcomes at 12 months: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (loss of 3 or more lines, change in visual acuity), contrast sensitivity, new vessel growth, quality of life and adverse effects at any time point.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (n = 2430 people, 2432 eyes) of radiation therapy with dosages ranging from 7.5 to 24 Gy. These studies mainly took place in Europe and North America but two studies were from Japan and one multicentre study included sites in South America. Three of these studies investigated brachytherapy (plaque and epimacular), the rest were studies of external beam radiotherapy (EBM) including one trial of stereotactic radiotherapy. Four studies compared radiotherapy combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) with anti-VEGF alone. Eleven studies gave no radiotherapy treatment to the control group; five studies used sham irradiation; and one study used very low-dose irradiation (1 Gy). One study used a mixture of sham irradiation and no treatment. Fifteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy There may be little or no difference in loss of 3 lines of vision at 12 months in eyes treated with radiotherapy compared with no radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04, 811 eyes, 8 studies, I2 = 66%, low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests a small benefit in change in visual acuity (mean difference (MD) -0.10 logMAR, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.03; eyes = 883; studies = 10) and average contrast sensitivity at 12 months (MD 0.15 log units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25; eyes = 267; studies = 2). Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported and It was not possible to produce a summary estimate of this outcome. The studies were small with imprecise estimates and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was only reported in one study of 199 people; there was no clear difference between treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence was available on adverse effects from eight of 14 studies. Seven studies reported on radiation retinopathy and/or neuropathy. Five of these studies reported no radiation-associated adverse effects. One study of 88 eyes reported one case of possible radiation retinopathy. One study of 74 eyes graded retinal abnormalities in some detail and found that 72% of participants who had radiation compared with 71% of participants in the control group had retinal abnormalities resembling radiation retinopathy or choroidopathy. Four studies reported cataract surgery or progression: events were generally few with no consistent evidence of any increased occurrence in the radiation group. One study noted transient disturbance of the precorneal tear film but there was no evidence from the other two studies that reported dry eye of any increased risk with radiation therapy. None of the participants received anti-VEGF injections. Radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF versus anti-VEGF alone People receiving radiotherapy/anti-VEGF were probably more likely to lose 3 or more lines of BCVA at 12 months compared with anti-VEGF alone (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.17, 1050 eyes, 3 studies, moderate-certainty). Most of the data for this outcome come from two studies of epimacular brachytherapy (114 events) compared with 20 events from the one trial of EBM. Data on change in BCVA were heterogenous (I2 = 82%). Individual study results ranged from a small difference of -0.03 logMAR in favour of radiotherapy/anti-VEGF to a difference of 0.13 logMAR in favour of anti-VEGF alone (low-certainty evidence). The effect differed depending on how the radiotherapy was delivered (test for interaction P = 0.0007). Epimacular brachytherapy was associated with worse visual outcomes (MD 0.10 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, 820 eyes, 2 studies) compared with EBM (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03, 252 eyes, 2 studies). None of the included studies reported contrast sensitivity or quality of life. Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported in three studies (803 eyes). It was not possible to produce a summary estimate and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). For adverse outcomes, variable results were reported in the four studies. In three studies reports of adverse events were low and no radiation-associated adverse events were reported. In one study of epimacular brachytherapy there was a higher proportion of ocular adverse events (54%) compared to the anti-VEGF alone (18%). The majority of these adverse events were cataract. Overall 5% of the treatment group had radiation device-related adverse events (17 cases); 10 of these cases were radiation retinopathy. There were differences in average number of injections given between the four studies (1072 eyes). In three of the four studies, the anti-VEGF alone group on average received more injections (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is uncertain regarding the use of radiotherapy for neovascular AMD. Most studies took place before the routine use of anti-VEGF, and before the development of modern radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy. Visual outcomes with epimacular brachytherapy are likely to be worse, with an increased risk of adverse events,  probably related to vitrectomy. The role of stereotactic radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF is currently uncertain. Further research on radiotherapy for neovascular AMD may not be justified until current ongoing studies have reported their results.

Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmia neonatorum is an infection of the eyes in newborns that can lead to blindness, particularly if the infection is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antiseptic or antibiotic medication is dispensed into the eyes of newborns, or dispensed systemically, soon after delivery to prevent neonatal conjunctivitis and potential vision impairment. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine if any type of systemic or topical eye medication is better than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. 2. To determine if any one systemic or topical eye medication is better than any other medication in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers, date of last search 4 October 2019. We also searched references of included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any topical, systemic, or combination medical interventions used to prevent ophthalmia neonatorum in newborns compared with placebo, no prophylaxis, or with each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Outcomes were: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at 12 months, conjunctivitis at 1 month (gonococcal (GC), chlamydial (CC), bacterial (BC), any aetiology (ACAE), or unknown aetiology (CUE)), and adverse effects.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials with a total of 79,198 neonates. Eighteen studies were conducted in high-income settings (the USA, Europe, Israel, Canada), and 12 were conducted in low- and middle-income settings (Africa, Iran, China, Indonesia, Mexico). Fifteen of the 30 studies were quasi-randomised. We judged every study to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Ten studies included a comparison arm with no prophylaxis. There were 14 different prophylactic regimens and 12 different medications in the 30 included studies. Any prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis  Unless otherwise indicated, the following evidence comes from studies assessing one or more of the following interventions: tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at any time point. There was only very low-certainty evidence on the risk of GC with prophylaxis (4/5340 newborns) compared to no prophylaxis (5/2889) at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 2.65, 3 studies). Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in effect on CC (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, 4874 newborns, 2 studies) and BC (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.93, 3685 newborns, 2 studies). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a probable reduction in risk of ACAE at one month (RR 0.65, 95% 0.54 to 0.78, 9666 newborns, 8 studies assessing tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%, colostrum, bacitracin-phenacaine ointment). There was only very low-certainty evidence on CUE  (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.28, 330 newborns, 1 study). Very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects suggested no increased nasolacrimal duct obstruction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, 404 newborns, 1 study of erythromycin 0.5% and silver nitrate 1%) and no increased keratitis (single study of 40 newborns assessing silver nitrate 1% with no events).    Any prophylaxis compared to another prophylaxis Overall, evidence comparing different interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention. However, most of this evidence was of low-certainty and was extremely limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no data on whether prophylaxis for ophthalmia neonatorum prevents serious outcomes such as blindness or any adverse visual outcome. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the use of prophylaxis may lead to a reduction in the incidence of ACAE in newborns but the evidence for effect on GC, CC or BC was less certain. Comparison of individual interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention, but data were limited. A trial comparing tetracycline, povidone-iodine (single administration), and chloramphenicol for GC and CC could potentially provide the community with an effective, universally applicable prophylaxis against ophthalmia neonatorum.

Toric intraocular lens versus limbal relaxing incisions for corneal astigmatism after phacoemulsification.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world, and clinically significant astigmatism may affect up to approximately 20% of people undergoing cataract surgery. Pre-existing astigmatism in people undergoing cataract surgery may be treated, among other techniques, by placing corneal incisions near the limbus (limbal relaxing incisions or LRIs) or by toric intraocular lens (IOLs) specially designed to reduce or treat the effect of corneal astigmatism on unaided visual acuity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and four other databases. The date of the search was 27 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing toric IOLs with LRIs during phacoemulsification cataract surgery.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants with postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.50 dioptres (D) six months or more after surgery. We also collected data on mean residual refractive astigmatism. Secondary outcomes included: uncorrected distance visual acuity, vision-related quality of life, spectacle independence and adverse effects including postoperative lens rotation requiring re-alignment. To supplement the main systematic review assessing the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery, we sought to identify economic evaluations on the subject. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 relevant studies including 517 people (626 eyes). These studies took place in China (three studies), UK (three), Brazil (one), India (one), Italy (one) and Spain (one). The median age of participants was 71 years. The level of corneal astigmatism specified in the inclusion criteria of these studies ranged from 0.75 D to 3 D. A variety of toric IOLs were used in these studies, in all but one study, these were monofocal. Studies used three different nomograms to determine the size and placement of the LRI. Two studies did not specify this. None of the studies were at low risk of bias in all domains, but two studies were at low risk of bias in all domains except selective outcome reporting, which was unclear. The remaining studies were at a mixture of low, unclear or high risk of bias. People receiving toric IOLs were probably more likely to achieve a postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.5 D six months or more after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 5 RCTs, 262 eyes). We judged this to be moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. In the included studies, approximately 500 eyes per 1000 achieved postoperative astigmatism less than 0.5 D in the LRI group compared with 700 per 1000 in the toric IOLs group. There was a small difference in residual astigmatism between the two groups, favouring toric IOLs (mean difference (MD) -0.32 D, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.15 D; 10 RCTs, 620 eyes). Although all studies favoured toric IOLs, the results of individual studies were inconsistent (range of effects -0.02 D to -0.71 D; I² = 89%). We considered this to be low-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias and inconsistency. People receiving a toric IOL probably have a small improvement in visual acuity at six months or more after surgery compared to people receiving LRI, but the difference is small and probably clinically insignificant (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 8 RCTs, 474 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 40 people suggested little difference in vision-related quality of life measured using the Visual Function Index (VF-14) (MD -3.01, 95% CI -8.56 to 2.54). Two studies reported spectacle independence and suggested that people receiving toric IOLs may be more likely to be spectacle independent (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15; 100 people; low-certainty evidence). There were no cases of lens rotation requiring surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Five studies (320 eyes) commented on a range of other adverse effects including corneal oedema, endophthalmitis and corneal ectasia. All these studies reported that there were no adverse events with the exception of one study (40 eyes) where one participant in the LRI group had a central de-epithelisation which recovered over 10 days. We found no economic studies that compared toric IOLs with LRIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Toric IOLs probably provide a higher chance of achieving astigmatism within 0.5 D after cataract surgery compared with LRIs. There may be a small mean difference in postoperative astigmatism, favouring toric IOLs, but this difference is likely to be clinically unimportant. There was no evidence of an important difference in postoperative visual acuity or quality of life between the techniques. Evidence on adverse effects was uncertain. The apparent shortage of relevant economic evaluations indicates that economic evidence regarding the costs and consequence of these two procedures is currently lacking.

Antibiotics for trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement). OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives). SEARCH METHODS: We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I2 = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I2 = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I2 = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I2 = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I2 = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.

Vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school-age children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of vision screening seem intuitive, the value of such programmes in junior and senior schools has been questioned. In addition there exists a lack of clarity regarding the optimum age for screening and frequency at which to carry out screening. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of vision screening programmes carried out in schools to reduce the prevalence of correctable visual acuity deficits due to refractive error in school-age children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 3 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials, that compared vision screening with no vision screening, or compared interventions to improve uptake of spectacles or efficiency of vision screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results and extracted data. Our pre-specified primary outcome was uncorrected, or suboptimally corrected, visual acuity deficit due to refractive error six months after screening. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included visual acuity deficit due to refractive error more than six months after screening, visual acuity deficit due to causes other than refractive error, spectacle wearing, quality of life, costs, and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven relevant studies. Five of these studies were conducted in China with one study in India and one in Tanzania. A total of 9858 children aged between 10 and 18 years were randomised in these studies, 8240 of whom (84%) were followed up between one and eight months after screening. Overall we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias. None of these studies compared vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits with not screening.Two studies compared vision screening with the provision of free spectacles versus vision screening with no provision of free spectacles (prescription only). These studies provide high-certainty evidence that vision screening with provision of free spectacles results in a higher proportion of children wearing spectacles than if vision screening is accompanied by provision of a prescription only (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 1.90; 1092 participants). The studies suggest that if approximately 250 per 1000 children given vision screening plus prescription only are wearing spectacles at follow-up (three to six months) then 400 per 1000 (335 to 475) children would be wearing spectacles after vision screening and provision of free spectacles. Low-certainty evidence suggested better educational attainment in children in the free spectacles group (adjusted difference 0.11 in standardised mathematics score, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.21, 1 study, 2289 participants). Costs were reported in one study in Tanzania in 2008 and indicated a relatively low cost of screening and spectacle provision (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any important effect of provision of free spectacles on uncorrected visual acuity (mean difference -0.02 logMAR (95% CI adjusted for clustering -0.04 to 0.01) between the groups at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Other pre-specified outcomes of this review were not reported.Two studies explored the effect of an educational intervention in addition to vision screening on spectacle wear. There was moderate-certainty evidence of little apparent effect of the education interventions investigated in these studies in addition to vision screening, compared to vision screening alone for spectacle wearing (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 1 study, 3177 participants) or related outcome spectacle purchase (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.31, 1 study, 4448 participants). Other pre-specified outcomes of this review were not reported.Three studies compared vision screening with ready-made spectacles versus vision screening with custom-made spectacles. These studies provide moderate-certainty evidence of no clinically meaningful differences between the two types of spectacles. In one study, mean logMAR acuity in better and worse eye was similar between groups: mean difference (MD) better eye 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; 414 participants; MD worse eye 0.06 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08; 414 participants). There was high-certainty evidence of no important difference in spectacle wearing (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 1203 participants) between the two groups and moderate-certainty evidence of no important difference in quality of life between the two groups (the mean quality-of-life score measured using the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life scale 42 was 1.42 better (1.04 worse to 3.90 better) in children with ready-made spectacles (1 study of 188 participants). Although none of the studies reported on costs directly, ready-made spectacles are cheaper and may represent considerable cost-savings for vision screening programmes in lower income settings. There was low-certainty evidence of no important difference in adverse effects between the two groups. Adverse effects were reported in one study and were similar between groups. These included blurred vision, distorted vision, headache, disorientation, dizziness, eyestrain and nausea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Vision screening plus provision of free spectacles improves the number of children who have and wear the spectacles they need compared with providing a prescription only. This may lead to better educational outcomes. Health education interventions, as currently devised and tested, do not appear to improve spectacle wearing in children. In lower-income settings, ready-made spectacles may provide a useful alternative to expensive custom-made spectacles.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. OBJECTIVES: The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO. The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs using network meta-analysis methods. SEARCH METHODS: We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. Aflibercept may confer some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms but it is unclear whether this applies to the long-term. There is a need for more evidence on the long-term (greater than two years) comparative effects of these anti-VEGF agents. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

Community screening for visual impairment in older people.

BACKGROUND: Visual problems in older people are common and frequently under-reported. The effects of poor vision in older people are wide reaching and include falls, confusion and reduced quality of life. Much of the visual impairment in older ages can be treated (e.g. cataract surgery, correction of refractive error). Vision screening may therefore reduce the number of older people living with sight loss. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects on vision of community vision screening of older people for visual impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 23 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vision screening alone or as part of a multi-component screening package as compared to no vision screening or standard care, on the vision of people aged 65 years or over in a community setting. We included trials that used self-reported visual problems or visual acuity testing as the screening tool. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Visual outcome data were available for 10,608 people in 10 trials. Four trials took place in the UK, two in Australia, two in the United States and two in the Netherlands. Length of follow-up ranged from one to five years. Three of these studies were cluster-randomised trials whereby general practitioners or family physicians were randomly allocated to undertake vision screening or no vision screening. All studies were funded by government agencies. Overall we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias and only downgraded the certainty of the evidence (GRADE) for imprecision.Seven trials compared vision screening as part of a multi-component screening versus no screening. Six of these studies used self-reported vision as both screening tool and outcome measure, but did not directly measure vision. One study used a combination of self-reported vision and visual acuity measurement: participants reporting vision problems at screening were treated by the attending doctor, referred to an eye care specialist or given information about resources that were available to assist with poor vision. There was a similar risk of "not seeing well" at follow-up in people screened compared with people not screened in meta-analysis of six studies (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.14, 4522 participants high-certainty evidence). One trial reported "improvement in vision" and this occurred slightly less frequently in the screened group (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.40, 230 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Two trials compared vision screening (visual acuity testing) alone with no vision screening. In one study, distance visual acuity was similar in the two groups at follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was also little difference in near acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any important difference in quality of life (MD -0.06 National Eye Institute 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25) score adjusted for baseline VFQ-25 score, 95% CI -2.3 to 1.1, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). The other study could not be included in the data analysis as the number of participants in each of the arms at follow-up could not be determined. However the authors stated that there was no significant difference in mean visual acuity in participants who had visual acuity assessed at baseline (39 letters) as compared to those who did not have their visual acuity assessed (35 letters, P = 0.25, 121 participants).One trial compared a detailed health assessment including measurement of visual acuity (intervention) with a brief health assessment including one question about vision (standard care). People given the detailed health assessment had a similar risk of visual impairment (visual acuity worse than 6/18 in either eye) at follow-up compared with people given the brief assessment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36, 1807 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The mean composite score of the VFQ-25 was 86.0 in the group that underwent visual acuity screening compared with 85.6 in the standard care group, a difference of 0.40 (95% CI -1.70 to 2.50, 1807 participants, high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from RCTs undertaken to date does not support vision screening for older people living independently in a community setting, whether in isolation or as part of a multi-component screening package. This is true for screening programmes involving questions about visual problems, or direct measurements of visual acuity.The most likely reason for this negative review is that the populations within the trials often did not take up the offered intervention as a result of the vision screening and large proportions of those who did not have vision screening appeared to seek their own intervention. Also, trials that use questions about vision have a lower sensitivity and specificity than formal visual acuity testing. Given the importance of visual impairment among older people, further research into strategies to improve vision of older people is needed. The effectiveness of an optimised primary care-based screening intervention that overcomes possible factors contributing to the observed lack of benefit in trials to date warrants assessment; trials should consider including more dependent participants, rather than those living independently in the community.

Reading aids for adults with low vision.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of low-vision rehabilitation is to allow people to resume or to continue to perform daily living tasks, with reading being one of the most important. This is achieved by providing appropriate optical devices and special training in the use of residual-vision and low-vision aids, which range from simple optical magnifiers to high-magnification video magnifiers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different visual reading aids for adults with low vision. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 12); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; BIREME LILACS, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 17 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared any device or aid used for reading to another device or aid in people aged 16 or over with low vision as defined by the study investigators. We did not compare low-vision aids with no low-vision aid since it is obviously not possible to measure reading speed, our primary outcome, in people that cannot read ordinary print. We considered reading aids that maximise the person's visual reading capacity, for example by increasing image magnification (optical and electronic magnifiers), augmenting text contrast (coloured filters) or trying to optimise the viewing angle or gaze position (such as prisms). We have not included studies investigating reading aids that allow reading through hearing, such as talking books or screen readers, or through touch, such as Braille-based devices and we did not consider rehabilitation strategies or complex low-vision interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome of the review was reading speed in words per minute. Secondary outcomes included reading duration and acuity, ease and frequency of use, quality of life and adverse outcomes. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 small studies with a cross-over design (435 people overall), one study with two parallel arms (37 participants) and one study with three parallel arms (243 participants). These studies took place in the USA (7 studies), the UK (5 studies) and Canada (1 study). Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was the most frequent cause of low vision, with 10 studies reporting 50% or more participants with the condition. Participants were aged 9 to 97 years in these studies, but most were older (the median average age across studies was 71 years). None of the studies were masked; otherwise we largely judged the studies to be at low risk of bias. All studies reported the primary outcome: results for reading speed. None of the studies measured or reported adverse outcomes.Reading speed may be higher with stand-mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) than with optical devices (stand or hand magnifiers) (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 92 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that reading duration was longer with the electronic devices and that they were easier to use. Similar results were seen for electronic devices with the camera mounted in a 'mouse'. Mixed results were seen for head-mounted devices with one study of 70 participants finding a mouse-based head-mounted device to be better than an optical device and another study of 20 participants finding optical devices better (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three studies (93 participants) suggested no important differences in reading speed, acuity or ease of use between stand-mounted and head-mounted electronic devices. Similarly, low-certainty evidence from one study of 100 participants suggested no important differences between a 9.7'' tablet computer and stand-mounted CCTV in reading speed, with imprecise estimates (other outcomes not reported).Low-certainty evidence showed little difference in reading speed in one study with 100 participants that added electronic portable devices to preferred optical devices. One parallel-arm study in 37 participants found low-certainty evidence of higher reading speed at one month if participants received a CCTV at the initial rehabilitation consultation instead of a standard low-vision aids prescription alone.A parallel-arm study including 243 participants with AMD found no important differences in reading speed, reading acuity and quality of life between prism spectacles and conventional spectacles. One study in 10 people with AMD found that reading speed with several overlay coloured filters was no better and possibly worse than with a clear filter (low-certainty evidence, other outcomes not reported). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence supporting the use of a specific type of electronic or optical device for the most common profiles of low-vision aid users. However, there is some evidence that stand-mounted electronic devices may improve reading speeds compared with optical devices. There is less evidence to support the use of head-mounted or portable electronic devices; however, the technology of electronic devices may have improved since the studies included in this review took place, and modern portable electronic devices have desirable properties such as flexible use of magnification. There is no good evidence to support the use of filters or prism spectacles. Future research should focus on assessing sustained long-term use of each device and the effect of different training programmes on its use, combined with investigation of which patient characteristics predict performance with different devices, including some of the more costly electronic devices.

Different lasers and techniques for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a chronic progressive disease of the retinal microvasculature associated with prolonged hyperglycaemia. Proliferative DR (PDR) is a sight-threatening complication of DR and is characterised by the development of abnormal new vessels in the retina, optic nerve head or anterior segment of the eye. Argon laser photocoagulation has been the gold standard for the treatment of PDR for many years, using regimens evaluated by the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS). Over the years, there have been modifications of the technique and introduction of new laser technologies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of laser, other than argon laser, and different laser protocols, other than those established by the ETDRS, for the treatment of PDR. We compared different wavelengths; power and pulse duration; pattern, number and location of burns versus standard argon laser undertaken as specified by the ETDRS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 8 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) using standard argon laser for treatment of PDR compared with any other laser modality. We excluded studies of lasers that are not in common use, such as the xenon arc, ruby or Krypton laser. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane guidelines and graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies from Europe (6), the USA (2), the Middle East (1) and Asia (2). Five studies compared different types of laser to argon: Nd:YAG (2 studies) or diode (3 studies). Other studies compared modifications to the standard argon laser PRP technique. The studies were poorly reported and we judged all to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. The sample size varied from 20 to 270 eyes but the majority included 50 participants or fewer.Nd:YAG versus argon laser (2 studies): very low-certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR, pain during laser treatment and adverse effects.Diode versus argon laser (3 studies): very-low certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR and adverse effects; moderate-certainty evidence that diode laser was more painful (risk ratio (RR) troublesome pain during laser treatment (RR 3.12, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.51; eyes = 202; studies = 3; I2 = 0%).0.5 second versus 0.1 second exposure (1 study): low-certainty evidence of lower chance of vision loss with 0.5 second compared with 0.1 second exposure but estimates were imprecise and compatible with no difference or an increased chance of vision loss (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.04, 44 eyes, 1 RCT); low-certainty evidence that people treated with 0.5 second exposure were more likely to gain vision (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.28, 44 eyes, 1 RCT) but again the estimates were imprecise . People given 0.5 second exposure were more likely to have regression of PDR compared with 0.1 second laser PRP again with imprecise estimate (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48, 32 eyes, 1 RCT). There was very low-certainty evidence on progression of PDR and adverse effects.'Light intensity' PRP versus classic PRP (1 study): vision loss or gain was not reported but the mean difference in logMAR acuity at 1 year was -0.09 logMAR (95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, 65 eyes, 1 RCT); and low-certainty evidence that fewer patients had pain during light PRP compared with classic PRP with an imprecise estimate compatible with increased or decreased pain (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.93, 65 eyes, 1 RCT).'Mild scatter' (laser pattern limited to 400 to 600 laser burns in one sitting) PRP versus standard 'full' scatter PRP (1 study): very low-certainty evidence on vision and visual field loss. No information on adverse effects.'Central' (a more central PRP in addition to mid-peripheral PRP) versus 'peripheral' standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with central PRP were more likely to lose 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with peripheral laser PRP (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46, 50 eyes, 1 RCT); and less likely to gain 15 or more letters (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.08) with imprecise estimates compatible with increased or decreased risk.'Centre sparing' PRP (argon laser distribution limited to 3 disc diameters from the upper temporal and lower margin of the fovea) versus standard 'full scatter' PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with 'centre sparing' PRP were less likely to lose 15 or more ETDRS letters of BCVA compared with 'full scatter' PRP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50, 53 eyes). Low-certainty evidence of similar risk of regression of PDR between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27, 53 eyes). Adverse events were not reported.'Extended targeted' PRP (to include the equator and any capillary non-perfusion areas between the vascular arcades) versus standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had similar or slightly reduced chance of loss of 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with the standard PRP group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.28, 270 eyes). Low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had a similar or slightly increased chance of regression of PDR compared with the standard PRP group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 270 eyes). Very low-certainty information on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Modern laser techniques and modalities have been developed to treat PDR. However there is limited evidence available with respect to the efficacy and safety of alternative laser systems or strategies compared with the standard argon laser as described in ETDRS.

Interventions for eye movement disorders due to acquired brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Acquired brain injury can cause eye movement disorders which may include: strabismus, gaze deficits and nystagmus, causing visual symptoms of double, blurred or 'juddery' vision and reading difficulties. A wide range of interventions exist that have potential to alleviate or ameliorate these symptoms. There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions and the timing of their implementation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of any intervention and determine the effect of timing of intervention in the treatment of strabismus, gaze deficits and nystagmus due to acquired brain injury. We considered restitutive, substitutive, compensatory or pharmacological interventions separately and compared them to control, placebo, alternative treatment or no treatment for improving ocular alignment or motility (or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, AMED Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database, PsycBITE (Psychological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy), ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), National Eye Institute Clinical Studies Database and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The databases were last searched on 26 June 2017. No date or language restrictions were used in the electronic searches for trials. We manually searched the Australian Orthoptic Journal, British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, and ESA, ISA and IOA conference proceedings. We contacted researchers active in this field for information about further published or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any intervention for ocular alignment or motility deficits (or both) due to acquired brain injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We employed the GRADE approach to interpret findings and assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found five RCTs (116 participants) that were eligible for inclusion. These trials included conditions of acquired nystagmus, sixth cranial nerve palsy and traumatic brain injury-induced ocular motility defects. We did not identify any relevant studies of restitutive interventions.We identified one UK-based trial of a substitutive intervention, in which botulinum toxin was compared with observation in 47 people with acute sixth nerve palsy. At four months after entry into the trial, people given botulinum toxin were more likely to make a full recovery (reduction in angle of deviation within 10 prism dioptres), compared with observation (risk ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). These same participants also achieved binocular single vision. In the injection group only, there were 2 cases of transient ptosis out of 22 participants (9%), and 4 participants out of 22 (18%) with transient vertical deviation; a total complication rate of 24% per injection and 27% per participant. All adverse events recovered. We judged the certainty of evidence as low, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. It was not possible to mask investigators or participants to allocation, and the follow-up between groups varied.We identified one USA-based cross-over trial of a compensatory intervention. Oculomotor rehabilitation was compared with sham training in 12 people with mild traumatic brain injury, at least one year after the injury. We judged the evidence from this study to be very low-certainty. The study was small, data for the sham training group were not fully reported, and it was unclear if a cross-over study design was appropriate as this is an intervention with potential to have a permanent effect.We identified three cross-over studies of pharmacological interventions for acquired nystagmus, which took place in Germany and the USA. These studies investigated two classes of pharmacological interventions: GABAergic drugs (gabapentin, baclofen) and aminopyridines (4-aminopyridines (AP), 3,4-diaminopyridine (DAP)). We judged the evidence from all three studies as very low-certainty because of small numbers of participants (which led to imprecision) and risk of bias (they were cross-over studies which did not report data in a way that permitted estimation of effect size).One study compared gabapentin (up to 900 mg/day) with baclofen (up to 30 mg/day) in 21 people with pendular and jerk nystagmus. The follow-up period was two weeks. This study provides very low-certainty evidence that gabapentin may work better than baclofen in improving ocular motility and reducing participant-reported symptoms (oscillopsia). These effects may be different in pendular and jerk nystagmus, but without formal subgroup analysis it is unclear if the difference between the two types of nystagmus was chance finding. Quality of life was not reported. Ten participants with pendular nystagmus chose to continue treatment with gabapentin, and one with baclofen. Two participants with jerk nystagmus chose to continue treatment with gabapentin, and one with baclofen. Drug intolerance was reported in one person receiving gabapentin and in four participants receiving baclofen. Increased ataxia was reported in three participants receiving gabapentin and two participants receiving baclofen.One study compared a single dose of 3,4-DAP (20 mg) with placebo in 17 people with downbeat nystagmus. Assessments were made 30 minutes after taking the drug. This study provides very low-certainty evidence that 3,4-DAP may reduce the mean peak slow-phase velocity, with less oscillopsia, in people with downbeat nystagmus. Three participants reported transient side effects of minor perioral/distal paraesthesia.One study compared a single dose of 4-AP with a single dose of 3,4-DAP (both 10 mg doses) in eight people with downbeat nystagmus. Assessments were made 45 and 90 minutes after drug administration. This study provides very low-certainty evidence that both 3,4-DAP and 4-AP may reduce the mean slow-phase velocity in people with downbeat nystagmus. This effect may be stronger with 4-AP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies provide insufficient evidence to inform decisions about treatments specifically for eye movement disorders that occur following acquired brain injury. No information was obtained on the cost of treatment or measures of participant satisfaction relating to treatment options and effectiveness. It was possible to describe the outcome of treatment in each trial and ascertain the occurrence of adverse events.

Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that antioxidants may prevent cellular damage in the retina by reacting with free radicals that are produced in the process of light absorption. Higher dietary levels of antioxidant vitamins and minerals may reduce the risk of progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplementation on the progression of AMD in people with AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to March 2017), AMED (1985 to March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), 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 on 29 March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplementation (alone or in combination) to placebo or no intervention, in people with AMD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. One author entered data into RevMan 5; the other author checked the data entry. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies conducted in USA, Europe, China, and Australia. We judged the trials that contributed data to the review to be at low or unclear risk of bias.Nine studies compared multivitamins with placebo (7 studies) or no treatment (2 studies) in people with early and moderate AMD. The duration of supplementation and follow-up ranged from nine months to six years; one trial followed up beyond two years. Most evidence came from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) in the USA. People taking antioxidant vitamins were less likely to progress to late AMD (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 2445 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). In people with very early signs of AMD, who are at low risk of progression, this would mean that there would be approximately 4 fewer cases of progression to late AMD for every 1000 people taking vitamins (1 fewer to 6 fewer cases). In people at high risk of progression (i.e. people with moderate AMD) this would correspond to approximately 8 fewer cases of progression for every 100 people taking vitamins (3 fewer to 13 fewer). In one study of 1206 people, there was a lower risk of progression for both neovascular AMD (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence) and geographic atrophy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence) and a lower risk of losing 3 or more lines of visual acuity (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; 1791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 110 people suggested higher quality of life scores (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire) in treated compared with the non-treated people after 24 months (mean difference (MD) 12.30, 95% CI 4.24 to 20.36). Six studies compared lutein (with or without zeaxanthin) with placebo. The duration of supplementation and follow-up ranged from six months to five years. Most evidence came from the AREDS2 study in the USA. People taking lutein or zeaxanthin may have similar or slightly reduced risk of progression to late AMD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01; 6891 eyes; low-certainty evidence), neovascular AMD (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02; 6891 eyes; low-certainty evidence), and geographic atrophy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 6891 eyes; low-certainty evidence). A similar risk of progression to visual loss of 15 or more letters was seen in the lutein and control groups (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 6656 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (measured with Visual Function Questionnaire) was similar between groups in one study of 108 participants (MD 1.48, 95% -5.53 to 8.49, moderate-certainty evidence). One study, conducted in Australia, compared vitamin E with placebo. This study randomised 1204 people to vitamin E or placebo, and followed up for four years. Participants were enrolled from the general population; 19% had AMD. The number of late AMD events was low (N = 7) and the estimate of effect was uncertain (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.05, very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on neovascular AMD or geographic atrophy.There was no evidence of any effect of treatment on visual loss (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.47, low-certainty evidence). There were no data on quality of life. Five studies compared zinc with placebo. The duration of supplementation and follow-up ranged from six months to seven years. People taking zinc supplements may be less likely to progress to late AMD (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 3790 participants; 3 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), neovascular AMD (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93; 2442 participants; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), geographic atrophy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; 2442 participants; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), or visual loss (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 3791 participants; 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no data reported on quality of life.Very low-certainty evidence was available on adverse effects because the included studies were underpowered and adverse effects inconsistently reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People with AMD may experience some delay in progression of the disease with multivitamin antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplementation. This finding was largely drawn from one large trial, conducted in a relatively well-nourished American population. We do not know the generalisability of these findings to other populations. Although generally regarded as safe, vitamin supplements may have harmful effects. A systematic review of the evidence on harms of vitamin supplements is needed. Supplements containing lutein and zeaxanthin are heavily marketed for people with age-related macular degeneration but our review shows they may have little or no effect on the progression of AMD.

Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for preventing age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: There is inconclusive evidence from observational studies to suggest that people who eat a diet rich in antioxidant vitamins (carotenoids, vitamins C, and E) or minerals (selenium and zinc) may be less likely to develop age-related macular degeneration (AMD). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not taking antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplements, or both, prevent the development of AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 29 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 29 March 2017), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) (1985 to 29 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 29 March 2017, the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 29 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 29 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 29 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplement (alone or in combination) to control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. One author entered data into RevMan 5; the other author checked the data entry. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of five RCTs in this review with data available for 76,756 people. The trials were conducted in Australia, Finland, and the USA, and investigated vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and multivitamin supplements. All trials were judged to be at low risk of bias.Four studies reported the comparison of vitamin E with placebo. Average treatment and follow-up duration ranged from 4 to 10 years. Data were available for a total of 55,614 participants. There was evidence that vitamin E supplements do not prevent the development of any AMD (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence), and may slightly increase the risk of late AMD (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. Only one study (941 participants) reported data separately for neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy. There were 10 cases of neovascular AMD (RR 3.62, 95% CI 0.77 to 16.95; very low-certainty evidence), and four cases of geographic atrophy (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 26.0; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported similar numbers of adverse events in the vitamin E and placebo groups. Another trial reported excess of haemorrhagic strokes in the vitamin E group (39 versus 23 events, hazard ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91, low-certainty evidence).Two studies reported the comparison of beta-carotene with placebo. These studies took place in Finland and the USA. Both trials enrolled men only. Average treatment and follow-up duration was 6 years and 12 years. Data were available for a total of 22,083 participants. There was evidence that beta-carotene supplements did not prevent any AMD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence) nor have an important effect on late AMD (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study (941 participants) reported data separately for neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy. There were 10 cases of neovascular AMD (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.15; very low-certainty evidence) and 4 cases of geographic atrophy (RR 0.31 95% CI 0.03 to 2.93; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-carotene was associated with increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked.One study reported the comparison of vitamin C with placebo, and multivitamin (Centrum Silver) versus placebo. This was a study in men in the USA with average treatment duration and follow-up of 8 years for vitamin C and 11 years for multivitamin. Data were available for a total of 14,236 participants. AMD was assessed by self-report followed by medical record review. There was evidence that vitamin C supplementation did not prevent any AMD (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence) or late AMD (RR 0.94, 0.61 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a slight increased risk of any AMD (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; moderate-certainty evidence) and late AMD (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.69; moderate-certainty evidence) in the multivitamin group. Neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy were not reported separately. Adverse effects were not reported but there was possible increased risk of skin rashes in the multivitamin group.Adverse effects were not consistently reported in these eye studies, but there is evidence from other large studies that beta-carotene increases the risk of lung cancer in people who smoke or who have been exposed to asbestos.None of the studies reported quality of life or resource use and costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Taking vitamin E or beta-carotene supplements will not prevent or delay the onset of AMD. The same probably applies to vitamin C and the multivitamin (Centrum Silver) investigated in the one trial reported to date. There is no evidence with respect to other antioxidant supplements, such as lutein and zeaxanthin. Although generally regarded as safe, vitamin supplements may have harmful effects, and clear evidence of benefit is needed before they can be recommended. People with AMD should see the related Cochrane Review on antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of AMD, written by the same review team.