MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014346147

Optimal Timing for Intraocular Pressure Measurement Following Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· article· en· W7014346147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraocular pressureMean differenceCataract surgeryMEDLINEPhacoemulsificationGlaucomaMeta-analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

William J Herspiegel,1,* Brian E Yu,1,* Monali S Malvankar-Mehta,1,2,* Cindy ML Hutnik1,2,* 1Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; 2Ivey Eye Institute, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: William J Herspiegel, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, Email wherspiegel2026@meds.uwo.caPurpose: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) has increasingly been adopted worldwide. Lagging behind is evidence-based consensus regarding optimal timing for intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement following FLACS. The purpose of this study was to determine if enough evidence currently exists to guide best practice.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE until February 6th, 2023. Articles reporting IOP measurements following uncomplicated FLACS were screened. For change in IOP at various post-operative timepoints, standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated as the mean difference in IOP from baseline. Risk of Bias Assessment was conducted following data extraction.Results: The meta-analysis incorporated six randomized clinical studies involving a total of 1356 eyes from 1032 participants. Post-operative day one was the only timepoint with a non-significant increase in IOP (SMD = − 0.08 [95% CI: − 0.41 to +0.24]) compared to the 7-days, 30-days, 60 to 90-days, and 180-days follow-up periods. All studies except one utilized an ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD) in their procedure; this was the only publication that reported a decrease in IOP from baseline within the 1-day follow-up period.Conclusion: The results suggest that the optimal time to measure IOP is within the first 24 hours after FLACS. However, these findings are limited by a small study sample. Future prospective clinical trials may be beneficial to determine if specific timepoints within the first 24 hours exist to optimize outcomes and patient reported experiences.Keywords: IOP, FLACS, preferred practice, tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.375
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207