LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ang, M; Evans, JR; Mehta, JS (2012)
Publisher: Cochrane Collaboration
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: genetic structures, eye diseases
Age-related cataract is the opacification of the lens, which occurs as a result of denaturation of lens proteins. Age-related cataract remains the leading cause of blindness globally, except in the most developed countries. A key question is what is the best way of removing the lens, especially in lower income settings. To compare two different techniques of lens removal in cataract surgery: manual small incision surgery (MSICS) and extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE). We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to September 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), (January 1990 to September 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (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 23 September 2014. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. Participants in the trials were people with age-related cataract. We included trials where MSICS with a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implant was compared to ECCE with a posterior chamber IOL implant. Data were collected independently by two authors. We aimed to collect data on presenting visual acuity 6/12 or better and best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60 at three months and one year after surgery. Other outcomes included intraoperative complications, long-term complications (one year or more after surgery), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. There were not enough data available from the included trials to perform a meta-analysis. Three trials randomly allocating people with age-related cataract to MSICS or ECCE were included in this review (n = 953 participants). Two trials were conducted in India and one in Nepal. Trial methods, such as random allocation and allocation concealment, were not clearly described; in only one trial was an effort made to mask outcome assessors. The three studies reported follow-up six to eight weeks after surgery. In two studies, more participants in the MSICS groups achieved unaided visual acuity of 6/12 or 6/18 or better compared to the ECCE group, but overall not more than 50% of people achieved good functional vision in the two studies. 10/806 (1.2%) of people enrolled in two trials had a poor outcome after surgery (best-corrected vision less than 6/60) with no evidence of difference in risk between the two techniques (risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 5.55). Surgically induced astigmatism was more common with the ECCE procedure than MSICS in the two trials that reported this outcome. In one study there were more intra- and postoperative complications in the MSICS group. One study reported that the costs of the two procedures were similar. There are no other studies from other countries other than India and Nepal and there are insufficient data on cost-effectiveness of each procedure. Better evidence is needed before any change may be implemented. Future studies need to have longer-term follow-up and be conducted to minimize biases revealed in this review with a larger sample size to allow examination of adverse events.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to September 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCIS), (January 1990 to September 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (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 23 September 2014.
    • See: Appendices for details of search strategies for CENTRAL (Appendix 1), MEDLINE (Appendix 2), EMBASE (Appendix 3), LILACS (Appendix 4), CPCI-S (Appendix 5), mRCT (Appendix 6), ClinicalTrials.gov (Appendix 7) and the ICTRP (Appendix 8).
    • Hennig 1999 Hennig A. Tunnel sutureless high volume cataract surgery. IAPB 6th General Assembly. Beijing, September 6 1999.
    • Higgins 2011 Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
    • Javitt 1992 Javitt JC, Tielch JM, Canner JK, Kolb MM, Sommer A, Steinberg EP. National outcomes of cataract extraction. Increased risk of retinal complications associated with Nd: YAG laser capsulotomy. The Cataract Patient Outcomes Research Team. Ophthalmology 1992;99(10):1487-98.
    • Kirkham 2010 Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010;340:c365.
    • Kupfer 1994 Kupfer C. The International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1994;117(2): 253-7.
    • Limburg 1996 Limburg H, Kumar R, Bachani D. Monitoring and evaluating cataract intervention in India. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1996;80(11):951-5.
    • Mehta 1999 Mehta KR, Mehta CK. Teaching standards in phacoemulsification. How realistic are they?. Symposium on Phacoemulsification. VI Ophthalmological Congress of SAARC Countries. Kathmandu, November 20 1999.
    • Minassian 1990 Minassian DC, Mehra V. 3.8 Million blinded by cataract each year: projections from the first epidemiological study of the incidence of cataract blindness in India. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1990;74(6):341-3.
    • Muralikrishnan 2004 Muralikrishnan R, Venkatesh R, Prajna NV, Frick KD. Economic cost of cataract surgery procedures in an established eye care centre in Southern India. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2004;11(5):369-80.
    • Norregaard 1999 Norregaard JC, Bernth-Pettersen P, Bellan L, Alonso J, Black C, Dunn E, et al. Intraoperative clinical practice and risk of early complications after cataract extraction in the Unites States, Canada, Denmark and Spain. Ophthalmology 1999;106(1):42-8.
    • OCTET 1986 Anonymous. Use of a grading system in the evaluation of complications in a randomised controlled trial on cataract surgery. Oxford Cataract Treatment and Evaluation Team (OCTET). British Journal of Ophthalmology 1986;70(6): 411-4.
    • Passolini 2004 Passolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP, Pararajasegarm R, Etyalale D, Negrel AD, et al. 2002 global update of available data on visual impairment:a compilation of populationbased prevalence studies. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2004;11 (2):67-115.
    • Perera 2007 Perera R, Glasziou P. A simple method to correct for the design effect in systematic reviews of trials using paired dichotomous data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007; 60(9):975-8.
    • Resnikoff 2004 Resnikoff S, Passolini D, Etyalale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegarm R, Pokharel GP, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of The World Health Organisation 2004;82(11):844-51.
    • Review Manager 2011 [Computer program] The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
    • Riaz 2006 Riaz Y, Mehta JS, Wormald R, Evans JR, Foster A, Ravilla T, et al. Surgical interventions for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001323.pub2]
    • Riaz 2013 Riaz Y, Malik A, Evans JR. Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD008813.pub2]
    • Ruit 2000 Ruit S, Paudyal G, Gurung R, Tabin G, Moran D, Brian G. An innovation in developing world cataract surgery: sutureless extracapsular cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Clinial and Experimental Ophthalmology 2000;28(4):274-9.
    • Singh 2000 Singh AJ, Garner P, Floyd K. Cost-effectiveness of publicfunded options for cataract surgery in Mysore, India. Lancet 2000;355(9199):180-4.
    • Snellingen 2002 Snellingen T, Evans JR, Ravilla T, Foster A. Surgical interventions for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD001323]
    • Thylefors 1998 Thylefors B. A global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;125(1):90-3.
    • Venkatesh 2005 Venkatesh R, Muralikrishnan, Balent LC, Prakash SK, Prajna NV. Outcomes of high volume cataract surgeries in a developing country. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005; 89(9):1079-83.
    • White 2008 White IR, Higgins JP, Wood AM. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis-Part 1: two-stage methods. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27(5):711-27.
    • Yorston 2005 Yorston D. High-volume surgery in developing countries. Eye 2005;19(10):1083-9.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    40
    40%
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article