Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye

Efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The incidence of stroke sequelae among patients is as high as 70%–80%. Flexor spasm is the most common stroke sequela, presenting a heavy burden to the patients and their families. This study will evaluate the results of randomized controlled trials to determine the efficacy and safety of hand manipulation acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke.

Methods

Eight databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Wanfang Database, and Web of Science, will be searched using English and Chinese search strategies. In addition, manual retrieval of research papers, conference papers, ongoing experiments, and internal reports, among others, will supplement electronic retrieval. All eligible studies published on or before January 15, 2021 will be selected. To enhance the effectiveness of the study, only clinical randomized controlled trials related to the use of manual acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke will be included.

Analysis

The Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment will be the primary outcome measure, whereas the Wolf Motor Function Test, Modified Ashworth Scale, arm movement survey test table, and upper extremity freehand muscle strength assessment scores will be the secondary outcomes. Side effects and adverse events will be included as safety evaluations. To ensure the quality of the systematic evaluation, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be independently performed by two authors, and a third author will resolve any disagreement.

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke. Since all included data will be obtained from published articles, it does not require ethical approval and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

INPLASY registration number: INPLASY202110071.

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.

Identifying priority review questions for Cochrane Eyes and Vision: protocol for a priority setting exercise

INTRODUCTION

Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10-15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework.

RESULTS

One CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two. Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.