Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under.

BACKGROUND: Congenital cataracts are lens opacities in one or both eyes of babies or children present at birth. These may cause a reduction in vision severe enough to require surgery. Cataracts are proportionally the most treatable cause of visual loss in childhood, and are a particular problem in low-income countries, where early intervention may not be possible. Paediatric cataracts provide different challenges to those in adults. Intense inflammation, amblyopia (vision is obstructed by cataract from birth which prevents normal development of the visual system), posterior capsule opacification and uncertainty about the final trajectory of ocular growth parameters can affect results of treatment. Two options currently considered for children under 2 years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts are: (i) intraocular lens (IOL) implantation; or (ii) leaving a child with primary aphakia (no lens in the eye), necessitating the need for contact lenses or aphakic glasses. Other important considerations regarding surgery include the prevention of visual axis opacification (VAO), glaucoma and the route used to perform lensectomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of infant cataract surgery or lensectomy to no surgery for bilateral congenital cataracts in children aged 2 years and under. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 25 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared infant cataract surgery or lensectomy to no surgery, in children with bilateral congenital cataracts aged 2 years and younger. This update (of a review published in 2001 and updated in 2006) does not include children over 2 years of age because they have a wider variety of aetiologies, and are therefore managed differently, and have contrasting outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using RoB 1 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs that met our inclusion criteria with each trial comparing a different aspect of surgical intervention for this condition. The trials included a total of 79 participants under 2 years of age, were conducted in India and follow-up ranged from 1 to 5 years. Study participants and outcome assessors were not masked in these trials. One study (60 children) compared primary IOL implantation with primary aphakia. The results from this study suggest that there may be little or no difference in visual acuity at 5 years comparing children with pseudophakia (mean logMAR 0.50) and aphakia (mean logMAR 0.59) (mean difference (MD) -0.09 logMAR, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) -0.24 to 0.06; 54 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain as to the effect of IOL implantation compared with aphakia on visual axis opacification (VAO) (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 0.23 to 7.13; 54 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial investigators did not report on the cases of amblyopia. There was little evidence of a difference betwen the two groups in cases of glaucoma at 5 years follow-up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.10; 54 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Cases of retinal detachment and reoperation rates were not reported. The impact of IOL implantation on adverse effects is very uncertain because of the sparse data available: of the children who were pseudophakic, 1/29  needed a trabeculectomy and 8/29 developed posterior synechiae. In comparison, no trabeculectomies were needed in the aphakic group and 2/25 children had posterior synechiae (54 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  The second study (14 eyes of 7 children under 2 years of age) compared posterior optic capture of IOL without vitrectomy versus endocapsular implantations with anterior vitrectomy (commonly called 'in-the-bag surgery'). The authors did not report on visual acuity, amblyopia, glaucoma and reoperation rate. They had no cases of VAO in either group. The evidence is very uncertain as to the effect of in-the-bag implantation in children aged under 1 year. There was a higher incidence of inflammatory sequelae: 4/7 in-the-bag implantation eyes and 1/7 in optic capture eyes (P = 0.04, 7 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We graded the certainty of evidence as low or very low for imprecision in all outcomes because their statistical analysis reported that a sample size of 13 was needed in each group to achieve a power of 80%, whereas their subset of children under the age of 1 year had only 7 eyes in each group. The third study (24 eyes of 12 children) compared a transcorneal versus pars plana route using a 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy system. The evidence is very uncertain as to the effect of the route chosen on the incidence of VAO, with no cases reported at 1 year follow-up in either group. The investigators did not report on visual acuity, amblyopia, glaucoma, retinal detachment and reoperation rate. The pars plana route had the adverse effects of posterior capsule rupture in 2/12 eyes, and 1/12 eyes needing sutures. Conversely, 1/12 eyes operated on by the transcorneal route needed sutures. We graded the outcomes with very low-certainty because of the small sample size and the absence of a priori sample size calculation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high level evidence for the effectiveness of one type of surgery for bilateral congenital cataracts over another, or whether surgery itself is better than primary aphakia. Further RCTs are required to inform modern practice about concerns, including the timing of surgery, age at which surgery should be undertaken, age for implantation of an IOL and development of complications, such as reoperations, glaucoma and retinal detachment. Standardising the methods used to measure visual function, along with objective monitoring of compliance with the use of aphakic glasses/contact lenses would greatly improve the quality of study data and enable more reliable interpretation of outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Techniques for Open-Angle Glaucoma: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up. RESULTS: Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome for open-angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness. Minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as ab interno trabecular bypass surgery, have been introduced to prevent glaucoma from progressing.   OBJECTIVES: In light of the potential benefits for people with open-angle glaucoma and the widespread uptake of the technique, it is important to critically evaluate the evidence for whether treatment with ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome is both efficacious and safe. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2020, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 17 July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome compared to other surgical treatments (other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment, or medical treatment. We also included trials in which these devices were combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification in combination with other glaucoma surgery or alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was proportion of participants who were medication-free (not using eye drops). Secondary outcomes included mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP), proportion of participants who required further glaucoma surgery, mean change in quality of life, proportion of participants who achieved an IOP of 21 mmHg or less, 17 mmHg or less, or 14 mmHg or less and rate of visual field progression. Adverse effects were the proportion of participants experiencing intra- and postoperative complications. All outcomes were measured in the short term (6 to 18 months), medium term (18 to 36 months), and long term (36 months or longer). MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we included one RCT which had previously been identified as an ongoing study in our 2016 publication. This trial was a single-centre, single-surgeon RCT set in Canada with 19 participants. Participants were adults who had open-angle glaucoma, open angles, and had inadequately controlled IOP that required surgical intervention. The study was terminated before the intended sample size was reached 'due to slow recruitment and increasing lack of clinical equipoise over time'. This reduced the power of the study to detect clinically important effects. We assessed the trial as being at high risk of attrition, reporting, and other potential sources of biases. The risks of performance and detection bias are unclear. The intervention group of 10 people had Trabectome ab interno trabeculotomy combined with cataract extraction (phaco-AIT) and the comparator group of 9 people had trabeculectomy with mitomycin C combined with cataract extraction (phaco-Trab), one of whom was lost to follow-up. Seven of 10 participants in the phaco-AIT group and 4 of 8 in the phaco-Trab group were medication-free (not using drops) at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 16.2; very low-certainty evidence). At 12 months, the mean change in IOP was worse for phaco-AIT than for phaco-Trab, but this evidence was very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 3.70 mmHg, 95% CI -1.44 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence) in the phaco-AIT group, as was the difference in the mean number of IOP-lowering drops taken per day (MD -0.41, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.40; very low-certainty evidence). Only one participant in the phaco-AIT group required further glaucoma surgery. The study protocol declared that quality of life and visual field progression were measured, but they were not reported All 8 participants with complete data in the phaco-Trab group and 8 of 10 in the phaco-AIT had at least one early or late postoperative complication (e.g. day 1 IOP spike, hypotony, choroidal effusion, bleb leak or encapsulation, uveitis, or peripheral anterior synechiae). The evidence was very low-certainty due to high risk of bias for several domains for this study and for large imprecision of all estimates. We also identified one ongoing study, identified from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): a multicentre, open, RCT comparing Trabectome to ab interno trabeculectomy using microhook. The study investigators plan to recruit 120 adults between 20 and 90 years of age. The primary outcome is duration of treatment success. Secondary outcomes include postoperative IOP, number of anti-glaucoma medications, and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-quality evidence for the outcomes of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome for open-angle glaucoma. Properly designed RCTs are needed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of this technique.

Ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Schlemm´s canal microstent (Hydrus) for open angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. A number of minimally-invasive surgical techniques have been introduced as a treatment to prevent glaucoma from progressing; ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with the Schlemm's canal Hydrus microstent is one of them. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with the Hydrus microstent in treating people with open angle glaucoma (OAG). SEARCH METHODS: On 7 May 2019, we searched CENTRAL (2019, Issue 5), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the Hydrus microstent, alone or with cataract surgery, compared to other surgical treatments (cataract surgery alone, other minimally-invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment, or medical treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A minimum of three authors independently extracted data from reports of included studies, using a data collection form and analysed data, based on standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included three published studies, with 808 people randomised. Two studies had multiple international recruitment centres in the USA and other countries. The third study had several sites based in Europe. All three studies were sponsored by the Hydrus manufacturer Ivantis Inc. All studies included participants with mainly mild or moderate OAG (mean deviation between -3.6 dB (decibel) and -8.4 dB in all study arms), which was controlled with medication in many participants (mean medicated intraocular pressure (IOP) 17.9 mmHg to 19.1 mmHg). There were no concerns regarding allocation concealment bias, but masking of outcome assessors was high or unclear risk in all studies; masking of participants was achieved, and losses to follow-up were not a concern. Two studies compared the Hydrus microstent combined with cataract surgery to cataract surgery alone, in participants with visually significant cataracts and OAG. We found moderate-certainty evidence that adding the Hydrus microstent to cataract surgery increased the proportion of participants who were medication-free from about half to more than three quarters at 12-month, short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.83; 2 studies, 639 participants; I² = 0%; and 24-month, medium-term follow-up (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.88; 2 studies, 619 participants; I² = 0%). The Hydrus microstent combined with cataract surgery reduced the medium-term mean change in unmedicated IOP (after washout) by 2 mmHg more compared to cataract surgery alone (mean difference (MD) -2.00, 95% CI -2.69 to -1.31; 2 studies, 619 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and the mean change in IOP-lowering drops (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.27; 2 studies, 619 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We also found low-certainty evidence that adding a Hydrus microstent to cataract surgery reduced the need for secondary glaucoma surgery from about 2.5% to less than 1% (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.86; 2 studies, 653 participants; I² = 27%; low-certainty evidence). Intraocular bleeding, loss of 2 or more visual acuity (VA) lines, and IOP spikes of 10 mmHg or more were rare in both groups; estimates were imprecise, and included both beneficial and harmful effects. There were no cases of endophthalmitis in either group. No data were available on the proportion of participants achieving IOP less than 21 mmHg, 17 mmHg, or 14 mmHg; health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or visual field progression. One study provided short-term data for the Hydrus microstent compared with the iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent (iStent: implantation of two devices in a single procedure) in 152 participants with OAG (148 in analyses). Use of the Hydrus increased the proportion of medication-free participants from about a quarter to about half compared to those who received iStent, but this estimate was imprecise (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.11; low-certainty evidence). Use of the Hydrus microstent reduced unmedicated IOP (after washout) by about 3 mmHg more than the iStent (MD -3.10, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.03; moderate-certainty evidence), and the use of IOP-lowering medication (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.21; low-certainty evidence). Both devices achieved a final IOP < 21 mmHg in most participants (Hydrus microstent: 91.8%; iStent: 84%; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). None of the participants who received the Hydrus microstent (N = 74) required additional glaucoma surgery; two participants who received the iStent (N = 76) did. Few adverse events were found in either group. No data were available on the proportion of participants achieving IOP less than 17 mmHg or 14 mmHg, or on HRQOL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with cataracts and generally mild to moderate OAG, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the Hydrus microstent with cataract surgery compared to cataract surgery alone, likely increases the proportion of participants who do not require IOP lowering medication, and may further reduce IOP at short- and medium-term follow-up. There is moderate-certainty evidence that the Hydrus microstent is probably more effective than the iStent in lowering IOP of people with OAG in the short-term. Few studies were available on the effects of the Hydrus microstent, therefore the results of this review may not be applicable to all people with OAG, particularly in selected people with medically uncontrolled glaucoma, since IOP was controlled with medication in many participants in the included studies. Complications may be rare using the Hydrus microstent, as well as the comparator iStent, but larger studies are needed to investigate its safety.

Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) for open angle glaucoma and primary angle closure.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. A number of minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced as a treatment to prevent glaucoma progressing. Among them, endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) is a cyclodestructive procedure developed by Martin Uram in 1992. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ECP in people with open angle glaucoma (OAG) and primary angle closure whose condition is inadequately controlled with drops. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 12 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ECP compared to other surgical treatments (other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment. We also planned to include trials where these devices were combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors planned to independently extract data from reports of included studies using a data collection form and analyse data based on methods expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was proportion of participants who were drop-free (not using eye drops). Secondary outcomes included mean change in IOP; proportion of participants who achieved an IOP of 21 mmHg or less, 17 mmHg or less or 14 mmHg or less; and proportion of participants experiencing intra- and postoperative complications, We planned to measure all outcomes in the short-term (six to 18 months), medium-term (18 to 36 months), and long-term (36 months onwards). MAIN RESULTS: We found one ongoing study that met our inclusion criteria (ChiCTR-TRC-14004233). The study compares combined phacoemulsification with ECP to phacoemulsification alone in people with primary angle closure glaucoma. The primary outcome is intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of IOP-lowering drugs. A total of 50 people have been enrolled. The study started in February 2014 and the trialists have completed recruitment and are in the process of collecting data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-quality evidence for the effects of ECP for OAG and primary angle closure. Properly designed RCTs are needed to assess the medium and long-term efficacy and safety of this technique.

Subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices for medically uncontrolled glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. Subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices such as the Xen gelatin implant and InnFocus stent have been introduced as a treatment to prevent glaucoma progressing.These implants provide a channel to allow aqueous humour from the anterior chamber of the eye to drain into the subconjunctival space on the surface of the eye thus reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) and mimicking the mechanism of the most commonly undertaken glaucoma surgery, trabeculectomy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices in treating people with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension whose condition is inadequately controlled with drops. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 10 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Xen gelatin implant or InnFocus MicroShunt to other surgical treatments (other minimally-invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment. We also planned to include trials where these devices were combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to have two review authors independently extract data from reports of included studies using a data collection form and analyse data based on methods expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was mean change in IOP. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants who were drop-free; proportion of participants who achieved an IOP of 21 mmHg or less, 17 mmHg or less or 14 mmHg or less; and proportion of participants experiencing intra- and postoperative complications. We planned to measure all outcomes in the short-term (six to 18 months), medium-term (18 to 36 months), and long-term (36 months onwards). MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We found one ongoing study (NCT01881425). The study compares InnFocus MicroShunt to trabeculectomy in people with primary open angle glaucoma. The primary outcome is greater than 20% IOP reduction from baseline to 12 months' follow-up. A total of 889 people aged between 40 and 85 years have been enrolled. The estimated study completion date is November 2019. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-quality evidence for the effects of subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices for medically uncontrolled open angle glaucoma. Properly designed RCTs are needed to assess the medium- and long-term efficacy and safety of this technique.

Knotted urethral catheter: an unusual complication in adults.

Knotting of feeding tubes or urinary catheters has been reported as a rare complication in paediatrics when draining the bladder. This is caused by inserting thin flexible tubes too far in, allowing it to coil. We present a case of a 70-year-old woman who was catheterised during a routine spinal surgery, and the catheter coiled and balloon failed to deflate requiring a cystostopic approach to puncture the balloon and remove it. Awareness of this complication in female catheterisation and education on length of catheter insertion is important to avoid this.

A Review of Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions Relevant to Orthoptic Practice.

AIM: To present an overview of the range of systematic reviews on intervention trials pertinent to orthoptic practice, produced by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group (CEV). METHODS: We searched the 2016 Cochrane Library database (31.03.2016) to identify completed reviews and protocols of direct relevance to orthoptic practice. These reviews are currently completed and published, available on www.thecochranelibrary.com (free to UK health employees) or via the CEV website (http://eyes.cochrane.org/) . RESULTS: We found 27 completed CEV reviews across the topics of strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, and low vision. Seven completed CEV protocols addressed topics of strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, low vision, and screening. We found 3 completed Cochrane Stroke reviews addressing visual field loss, eye movement impairment, and age-related vision loss. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review process presents an important opportunity for any clinician to contribute to the establishment of reliable, evidence-based orthoptic practice. Each review has an abstract and plain language summary that many non-clinicians find useful, followed by a full copy of the review (background, objectives, methods, results, discussion) with a conclusion section that is divided into implications for practice and implications for research. The current reviews provide patients/parents/carers with information about various different conditions and treatment options, but also provide clinicians with a summary of the available evidence on interventions, to use as a guide for both clinical practice and future research planning. The reviews identified in this overview highlight the evidence available for effective interventions for strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, and low vision or stroke rehabilitation as well as the gaps in the evidence base. Thus, a demand exists for future robust, randomized, controlled trials of such interventions of importance in orthoptic practice.

Educational interventions for the prevention of eye injuries.

BACKGROUND: Ocular injury is a preventable cause of blindness, yet it remains a significant disabling health problem that affects all age groups. Injuries may occur in the home, in the workplace, during recreational activities or as a result of road crashes. Types of injuries vary from closed globe (contusion or lamellar laceration) to an open globe injury, which includes penetration and even perforation of the globe. To date, the main strategy to prevent these injuries has been to educate people to identify high-risk situations and to take correct action to avoid danger. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of educational interventions for the prevention of eye injuries. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries and the Cochrane Eyes & Vision Group Specialised Registers, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister (now includes National Research Register), AgeInfo, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, WHOLIS (World Health Organization Library Information System), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences), MEDCARIB (Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), ISI Web of Science: (Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S)), ERIC, ZETOC and SPORTdiscus. We also checked reference lists of relevant papers and contacted study authors in an effort to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials. Searches were last updated in August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies which evaluated any educational intervention aimed at preventing eye injuries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently screened the electronic search results and data extracted. Three authors entered data into RevMan 5. As we judged there to be substantial heterogeneity between participants and interventions, we did not pool the studies' results, but have reviewed the results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs and three controlled before-and-after studies in this review. One study reported eye injuries as an outcome and four studies reported change in behaviour or knowledge. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies do not provide reliable evidence that educational interventions are effective in preventing eye injuries. There is a need for well-conducted RCTs with adequate allocation concealment and masking (blinding). Studies should have a longer follow-up time and more studies need to be conducted in low and middle-income countries.

Topical treatments for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of topical treatments, in providing symptomatic relief from ocular allergy, remains uncertain. AIMS: To assess the effectiveness and relative efficacy of topical treatments for the management of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. DESIGN OF STUDY: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: A literature search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE bibliographic databases. METHOD: Double-masked randomised controlled trials were identified, that compared the use of topical mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglycate, nedocromil, lodoxamide) with placebo, topical antihistamines with placebo, and topical mast cell stabilisers with topical antihistamines. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of six trials showed that patients using sodium cromoglycate were 17 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 78) more likely to perceive benefit compared with those using a placebo, although this estimate may be partially influenced by publication bias. Five trials indicated that those patients using nedocromil were 1.8 times (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.6) more likely to perceive their allergy to be moderately or totally controlled than those using a placebo. Four trials showed that those using antihistamines were 1.3 times (95% CI = 0.8 to 2.2) more likely to perceive a 'good' treatment effect than those using mast cell stabilisers, although this beneficial effect was not statistically significant. Limited evidence suggests that antihistamines might have a faster therapeutic effect compared to mast cell stabilisers. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings confirm the benefit of topical mast cell stabilisers and antihistamines over placebo for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one type of medication over another. Treatment preferences should therefore be based on convenience of use (with reduced frequency of instillation for some preparations), patient preference, and costs, especially as important side effects were not reported with any medication.