Efficacy of the efficacy between dexamethasone versus triamcinolone acetonide after cataract surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical effects between dexamethasone and triamcinolone acetonide (TA) after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation among cataract patients. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to August 2020. The primary outcome was intraocular pressure. The secondary outcomes were the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), anterior chamber cell, and anterior chamber flare. The pooled effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) of 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale criteria were used for the quality assessment of included studies. RESULTS: Seven relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, there was no significant difference between TA injection and dexamethasone in comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) (SMD = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.29, 0.73], P = .408; I² = 86.9%) in the first day after treatment and last day of assessment. For the secondary outcomes, the logMAR (WMD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.08]) and the anterior chamber flare (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.18], P = .087; I² = 0%) showed no differences. However, the amount of anterior chamber cells (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.01], P = .044; I² = 0%) in the TA injection on the first day postoperative was higher than for dexamethasone. After treatment, there was no difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports that there were no differences in IOP, logMAR, and anterior chamber flare between TA injection and dexamethasone among cataract patients. TA injection treatment on the first day showed higher amounts of anterior chamber cells than with dexamethasone.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".