Chaerim Kang, Angela S Zhu, Olivia Waldman, T Michael Kashner, Paul B Greenberg
{"title":"Cataract surgery risk stratification models: a systematic review.","authors":"Chaerim Kang, Angela S Zhu, Olivia Waldman, T Michael Kashner, Paul B Greenberg","doi":"10.1007/s00417-025-06761-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Risk stratification models can assist cataract surgeons in clinical decision-making by categorizing patients into distinct groups based on their likelihood of complications. In this systematic review, we assess the characteristics of cataract surgery risk stratification models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched six databases (PubMed, OVID, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Trials, and Web of Science) in January 2024. We included peer-reviewed, full-text, English-language studies describing models used preoperatively to assess the likelihood of complications in cataract surgery. We excluded letters, editorials, and non-peer-reviewed publications, such as conference abstracts and studies describing predictive models that did not group the patients into distinct risk categories. We constructed a checklist from three frameworks to critically appraise the participants, predictors, and risk of bias in the models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 4192 articles, eight met the inclusion criteria. Most models were designed for attending surgeons only and for phacoemulsification to predict zonular complications and posterior capsule rupture. The most common risk factors identified in the models were poor patient positioning, advanced age, small pupils, and pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Methodological limitations included the lack of multivariable modeling, standardized outcome measures, and external validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cataract surgeons should understand the limitations of cataract surgery risk stratification models. Existing models can be improved with more robust methods, the use of standardized metrics, and external validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-025-06761-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Risk stratification models can assist cataract surgeons in clinical decision-making by categorizing patients into distinct groups based on their likelihood of complications. In this systematic review, we assess the characteristics of cataract surgery risk stratification models.
Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched six databases (PubMed, OVID, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Trials, and Web of Science) in January 2024. We included peer-reviewed, full-text, English-language studies describing models used preoperatively to assess the likelihood of complications in cataract surgery. We excluded letters, editorials, and non-peer-reviewed publications, such as conference abstracts and studies describing predictive models that did not group the patients into distinct risk categories. We constructed a checklist from three frameworks to critically appraise the participants, predictors, and risk of bias in the models.
Results: Of 4192 articles, eight met the inclusion criteria. Most models were designed for attending surgeons only and for phacoemulsification to predict zonular complications and posterior capsule rupture. The most common risk factors identified in the models were poor patient positioning, advanced age, small pupils, and pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Methodological limitations included the lack of multivariable modeling, standardized outcome measures, and external validation.
Conclusion: Cataract surgeons should understand the limitations of cataract surgery risk stratification models. Existing models can be improved with more robust methods, the use of standardized metrics, and external validation.
期刊介绍:
Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.