Table 1.
Primary and secondary outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS evaluated by Dickman et al. [1].
| Outcomes | Definition | ISBCS vs. DSBCS | Certainty of Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | |||
| Endophthalmitis (follow-up: 6 weeks) | Definition as per the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study [11] | Little to no difference | Low |
| Refraction (follow-up: 1–3 months) | Spherical equivalent refraction achieved NOT within 1.0 dioptre of target refraction | Low to moderate | |
| Complications (follow-up: 3 months) | Intraoperative (e.g. posterior capsule rupture) and postoperative (e.g. cystoid macular oedema, retinal detachment) | Very low | |
| Cost-effectiveness | Total cost per participant, cost per QALY or both (reported as USD 2017 equivalent) | Lower costs for ISBCS | Very low |
| Secondary | |||
| Visual acuity (follow-up: 1–3 months) | Baseline to postoperative change in BCDVA [difference of <5 letters (e.g. 0.1 LogMAR) was considered clinically insignificant] | Little to no difference | Very low |
| PROMS (follow-up: 1–3 months) | Participant satisfaction, vision-specific QoL and health-related QoL at baseline and final postoperative assessment | Moderate | |
ISBCS immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery, DSBCS delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery, QALY quality-adjusted life year, USD United States dollar, BCDVA best corrected distance visual acuity, PROMS patient- reported outcome measures, QoL quality of life.