Cystoid macular edema prophylaxis in cataract surgery: A protocol for network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cataracts are the leading cause of global preventable and treatable blindness. Cystoid macular edema (CME) is among the most common complications following cataract surgery. The development of CME impacts patients' quality of life and has economic implications for patients and healthcare systems. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating patients receiving prophylactic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or corticosteroid medications to determine the comparative effectiveness of each specific regimen on retinal thickness, visual acuity, the development of CME, patient quality of life, intraocular pressure and adverse events following uncomplicated, age-related cataract surgery performed by phacoemulsification. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) will be performed and will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension statement for NMA. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, as well as of the ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registries. Data will be collected and synthesized for seven pre-specified outcomes at 6 weeks and 3 months following surgery: i) change in central retinal thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), ii) best-recorded visual acuity iii) the rate of CME measured by OCT, and fluorescein angiography (FA) iv) the rate of patients experiencing clinically significant macular edema defined as the presence of CME and pre-specified thresholds for decreased visual acuity, v) patient quality of life, vi) intraocular pressure and vii) the number of patients experiencing one or more pre-specified adverse events. The certainty of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using GRADE NMA guidelines. DISCUSSION: The results of this NMA will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for this critical question with significant clinical equipoise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024531150.
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 | 0.047 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.002 |
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".