A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intravenous Sedation in Modern Cataract Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phacoemulsification is a surgical technique in which a cataract is extracted and replaced with an intraocular lens implant. This can be done under intravenous sedation, oral sedation, or no sedation, in addition to local anesthetic techniques. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of intravenous sedation versus non-intravenous sedation methods. Results found that intravenous sedation was significantly associated with a decrease in pain when compared to non- intravenous methods (SMD = -0.86, 95% CI 1.49 to -0.23, p=0.0008) (WMD = -1.01, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.36, p=0.002). The subgroup analysis found patients did not have a statistically significant reduction in pain when using intravenous sedation over oral sedation. The meta-analysis of perioperative complications found that intravenous sedation did not have a statistically significant increase in adverse events when compared to non-intravenous anesthesia techniques. These findings could inform policy and help develop definitive guidelines for sedation and anesthesia strategies during phacoemulsification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".