Cataract surgery risk stratification models: a systematic review.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
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.

白内障手术风险分层模型:系统综述。
目的:风险分层模型可以根据患者并发症的可能性将患者分为不同的组,从而帮助白内障外科医生进行临床决策。在这篇系统综述中,我们评估了白内障手术风险分层模型的特点。方法:使用系统评价和meta分析指南的首选报告项目,我们检索了6个数据库(PubMed, OVID, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Trials和Web of Science),时间为2024年1月。我们纳入了同行评议的、全文的、描述术前用于评估白内障手术并发症可能性模型的英语研究。我们排除了信件、社论和非同行评议的出版物,如会议摘要和描述预测模型的研究,这些模型没有将患者划分为不同的风险类别。我们从三个框架中构建了一个检查表,以批判性地评估模型中的参与者、预测者和偏倚风险。结果:4192篇文献中,8篇符合纳入标准。大多数模型仅用于外科医生和超声乳化术,以预测带状并发症和后囊破裂。在模型中发现的最常见的危险因素是患者体位不良、高龄、瞳孔小和假角质脱落综合征。方法上的局限性包括缺乏多变量建模、标准化结果测量和外部验证。结论:白内障外科医生应了解白内障手术风险分层模型的局限性。现有的模型可以通过更健壮的方法、标准化度量的使用和外部验证来改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
398
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信