Table 5.

Summary of findings table including the assessment of the certainty of evidence through the use of the GRADE framework for reported outcomes in our review.

Outcomes	Category	Outcome Endpoint	Studies (N)/ Eyes (N)	Estimate [95%CI]	Study Limitations	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication Bias	Certainty of Evidence (GRADE)
Primary Outcome [The overall prevalence of MME in glaucoma]
	Prevalence of MME	10/2128	0.09 [0.05: 0.12]	Fair quality	Y	—	—	—	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
Secondary Outcomes [MME vs. Non-MME]
	Patients’ characteristics
		Age	4/1386	MD = −5.91 [−6.62: −5.20]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
		Gender [Male]	3/873	logOR= 0.60 [−1.26: 0.06]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
	Stage of glaucoma
		Early	3/1168	LogOR = −1.84 [−3.51: −0.17]a	Fair quality	Y	—	Y	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
		Moderate	3/524	LogOR = −1.14 [1.86: −0.43]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
		Advanced	3/1168	LogOR= 1.41 [0.72: 2.09]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
	Ocular parameters
		Axial Length	2/532	MD = −0.04 [−0.68: 0.60]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
		Intraocular Pressure	2/532	MD = −0.04 [−1.04: 0.96]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
		Mean Deviation of VF	3/1168	MD = −5.00 [−7.01: −2.99]b	Fair quality	Y	—	Y	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low
		Spherical Equivalent	2/532	MD = −0.04 [−0.68: 0.60]	Fair quality	—	—	—	N/A	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low

N number, N/A not applicable because the meta-analysis was based on only one study, RoB risk of bias, GRADE Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, Y yes, MD mean difference, LogOR log odds ratio, VF visual field, MME microcystic macular edema

^aThis effect estimate was reported as per the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis following the exclusion of the study of Mahmoudinezhad et al. [21]

^bThis effect estimate was reported as per the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis following the exclusion of the study of Hasegawa et al. [16]