Interventions for trachoma trichiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trachoma is a leading cause of avoidable blindness. The World Health Organization recommends eliminating trachoma blindness by the SAFE strategy incorporating Surgery, Antibiotic treatment, Facial cleanliness and Environmental hygiene. OBJECTIVES: This review examined the evidence for the effectiveness of different interventions for trachoma trichiasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2005) PubMed (searched on 21-09-06; last 90 days), EMBASE (1980 to September 2005), LILACS (March 2004) and the reference lists of included studies. We also contacted authors for details of other relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of any intervention intended to treat trachoma trichiasis and trials comparing different methods of delivering the same intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials. We contacted trial authors for missing data when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Three studies compared different surgical interventions. These trials suggest the most effective surgery is full-thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the terminal tarsal strip 180 degrees. One study showed that bilamellar rotation was more effective than unilamellar rotation but the other two studies did not. One trial found double-sided sticking plaster more effective than epilation for the immediate management of trichiasis but required frequent replacement (odds ratio (OR) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.22). Another trial found community-based surgery increased convenience for patients without increasing the risk of complications or recurrence when compared to health centres. One trial found no difference between trichiasis surgery performed by ophthalmologists and integrated eye workers (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.11). A trial comparing trichiasis surgery with and without concurrent administration of azithromycin found no difference in success rates at one year (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No trials show interventions for trichiasis prevent blindness. Certain interventions have been shown to be more effective at eliminating trichiasis. Full thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the lash-bearing lid margin through 180 degrees is probably the best technique and is preferably delivered in the community. The use of double-sided sticking plaster is more effective than epilation as a temporary measure. Surgery may be carried out by an ophthalmologist or a trained ophthalmic assistant. The addition of azithromycin treatment at the time of surgery does not appear to improve outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".