↓ Skip to main content

Different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010510.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chongfei Jin, Xinyi Chen, Andrew Law, Yunhee Kang, Xue Wang, Wen Xu, Ke Yao

Abstract

Age-related cataract is the principal cause of blindness and visual impairment in the world. Phacoemulsification is the main surgical procedure used to treat cataract. The comparative effectiveness and safety of different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification has not been determined. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of smaller versus larger incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract. The primary outcome of this review was surgically induced astigmatism at three months after surgery. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1947 to 28 October 2016), PubMed (1948 to 28 October 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 28 October 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com; last searched 13 May 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov; searched 28 October 2016), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp; searched 28 October 2016). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different-sized incisions in people with age-related cataract undergoing phacoemulsification. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included 26 RCTs with a total of 2737 participants (3120 eyes). These trials were conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, France, India, Italy, Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey. Half of the 26 trials were conducted in China. We judged all trials as mostly at unclear to low risk of bias. The included RCTs compared four different-sized incisions:<= 1.5 mm, 1.8 mm, 2.2 mm, and approximately 3.0 mm. These incisions were performed using three different techniques: coaxial and biaxial microincision phacoemulsification (C-MICS and B-MICS) and standard phacoemulsification. Not all studies provided data in a form that could be included in this review. Five studies had three arms.Fifteen trials compared C-MICS (2.2 mm) with standard phacoemulsification (about 3.0 mm). Very low-certainty evidence suggested less surgically induced astigmatism in the C-MICS group at three months compared with standard phacoemulsification (mean difference (MD) -0.19 diopters (D), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.09; 996 eyes; 8 RCTs). There was low-certainty evidence that both groups achieved similar best-corrected visual acuity (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 242 eyes; 3 RCTs). There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in endothelial cell loss and central corneal thickness comparing C-MICS with standard phacoemulsification (MD -7.23 cells/mm(2), 95% CI -78.66 to 64.20; 596 eyes; 4 RCTs) and (MD -0.68 μm, 95% CI -3.26 to 1.90; 487 eyes; 5 RCTs).Nine trials compared C-MICS (1.8 mm) with standard phacoemulsification (about 3.0 mm). Very low-certainty evidence suggested less astigmatism at three months in the C-MICS group compared with standard phacoemulsification group (MD -0.23 D, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.13; 561 eyes; 5 RCTs). Low-certainty evidence suggested little or no difference in best-corrected visual acuity, endothelial cell loss, and central corneal thickness in the two groups at three months (MD -0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00; 192 eyes; 3 RCTs), (MD 7.56 cells/mm(2), 95% CI -67.65 to 82.77; 380 eyes; 5 RCTs), and (MD -1.52 μm, 95% CI -6.29 to 3.25; 245 eyes; 3 RCTs).Six studies compared C-MICS (1.8 mm) with C-MICS (2.2 mm). There was low-certainty evidence that astigmatism, visual acuity, and central corneal thickness were similar in the two groups at three months (MD 0.04 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.16; 259 eyes; 3 RCTs), (MD 0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04; 200 eyes; 3 RCTs), and (MD 0.45 μm, 95% CI -2.70 to 3.60; 100 eyes; 1 RCT). Very low-certainty evidence suggested higher endothelial cell loss in the 1.8 mm group (MD 213.00 cells/mm(2), 95% CI 11.15 to 414.85; 70 eyes; 1 RCT).Four studies compared B-MICS (<= 1.5 mm) with standard phacoemulsification (about 3.0 mm). Astigmatism was similar in the two groups at three months (MD -0.01 D, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 368 eyes; 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence on visual acuity, suggesting little or no difference between the two groups (MD -0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.00; 464 eyes; 3 RCTs). Low-certainty evidence on endothelial cell loss and central corneal thickness also suggested little or no difference between the two groups (MD 55.83 cells/mm(2), 95% CI -34.93 to 146.59; 280 eyes; 1 RCT) and (MD 0.10 μm, 95% CI -14.04 to 14.24; 90 eyes; 1 RCT).None of the trials reported on quality of life. One trial reported that no participants experienced endophthalmitis or posterior capsule rupture; they also reported little or no difference between incision groups regarding corneal edema (risk ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.63; 362 eyes). Phacoemulsification with smaller incisions was not consistently associated with less surgically induced astigmatism compared with phacoemulsification with larger incisions. Coaxial microincision phacoemulsification may be associated with less astigmatism than standard phacoemulsification, but the difference was small, in the order of 0.2 D, and the evidence was uncertain. Safety outcomes and quality of life were not adequately reported; these should be addressed in future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 32%
Unspecified 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Other 13 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 23%
Unspecified 6 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 10%
Other 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,040,045
of 13,538,736 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,161
of 10,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,983
of 271,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,538,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.