Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis of femtosecond lasers for LASIK

References (author, year)	Surgical procedure	Country	Eyes (n)	Preop mean SE (D) ± SD	Follow-up (mo)	Design	Jadad et al12 quality score
Tran et al, 200520	IntraLase FS 10 kHz	USA	9	−2.58	3	Randomized	2
Durrie and Stahl, 200432	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	USA	30	−4.66±1.73 (Custom Cornea)	1	Randomized	3
			30	−4.83±1.71 (Zyoptix)
Javaloy et al, 200733	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	Spain	100	−3.98±1.89	3	Randomized	4
Chan et al, 200834	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	USA	51	−3.76±1.41	12	Randomized	3
Durrie and Kezirian, 200550	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	USA	51	−3.59	3	Randomized	3
Montes-Mico et al, 200721	IntraLase FS 30 kHz	Spain	100	−2.85±1.79	6	Randomized	4
Patel et al, 200741	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	USA	21	−4.02±1.61	6	Randomized	3
Munoz et al, 201035	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	Spain	48	3.98±2.35 (defocus)a	48	Randomized	4
Stonecipher and Kezirian, 200836	IntraLase FS 15 kHz	USA	188	– (WF guided)	3	Randomized	1
			186	– (WF optimized)
Alio and Pinero, 200831	IntraLase FS 30 kHz	Spain	22	−4.11±1.10	3	Randomized	5
Pfaeffl et al, 200837	IntraLase FS 30 kHz	Germany	287	−4.1±3.6	Intraop	Prospective interventional case study	1
Rosa et al, 200938	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	Portugal	20	−4.48±2.55	3	Prospective cohort	1
			20	−5.60±1.05
Slade et al, 200913	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	USA	50	−3.96	6	Randomized	3
Prakash et al, 201014	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	India	60	−5.70	1	Randomized	5
			60	−6.09
			60	−5.98
			60	−5.13
Hatch et al, 201115	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	USA	26	−4.34	6	Randomized	5
Prakash et al, 201116	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	India	385	−6.08±2.7	12	Randomized	5
			385	−5.99±2.8
He et al, 201417	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	USA	55	−4.75±2.22 (WF guided)	12	Randomized	3
			55	−4.81±1.95 (WF optimized)
Zhai et al, 201339	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	People’s Republic of China	59	−7.15±2.87	1	Randomized	4
Tanzer et al, 201322	IntraLase FS 60 or 150 kHz	USA	544	−2.56	3	Prospective noncomparative two-site study	1
			57	−0.34
			30	+1.86
Yu and Manche, 201519	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	USA	61	−4.66±2.30	12	Randomized	3
	IntraLase FS 150 kHz		61	−4.62±2.32
Sales and Manche, 201323	IntraLase FS 150 kHz	USA	36	−4.04±1.67 (WF guided)	12	Randomized	3
			36	−3.99±1.71 (WF optimized)
Yu and Manche, 201425	IntraLase FS 150 kHz	USA	50	−3.89±1.67 (Allegretto Wave Eye-Q)	12	Prospective comparative case series	3
			50	−4.18±1.73 (Visx Star Customvue S4 IR)
Vryghem et al, 201026	FEMTO LDV	Belgium	111	−4.91±2.45	6	Prospective, consecutive	1
Zhou et al, 201242	FEMTO LDV	People’s Republic of China	360	−6.58±2.86	1 wk	Randomized	2
Rosman et al, 201324	Visumax 500 kHz	Singapore	45	−4.94±2.08	3	Randomized	5
	IntraLase FS 150 kHz		45	−4.91±2.09
Ang et al, 201318	Visumax 500 kHz	Singapore	381	−5.41±2.22	3	Retrospective case review	1
	IntraLase FS 60 kHz		362	−5.34±2.28
Lim et al, 201328	Visumax 200 kHz	Korea	36	−5.25±1.53	6	Randomized	5
			36	−4.89±1.40
Kymionis et al, 201329	Wavelight AG/Alcon FS200	Greece	50	−4.15±1.69	6	Prospective nonrandomized interventional case series	3
Cummings et al, 201330	Wavelight FS200	Ireland	378	−4.03±2.29	3	Retrospective consecutive case series	1
Ahn et al, 201140	IntraLase FS 60 kHz	Korea	50	K=42.37±2.0	2	Comparative case series	3
	Visumax		40	K=43.38±1.77
	FEMTO LDV		64	K=43.31±1.48
Arbelaez et al, 200927	FEMTO LDV	Sultanate of Oman	50	−3.08±2.32 (defocus)a	6	Retrospective	1

Notes:

^aMean manifest defocus refraction as reported by the authors. Studies written in bold have been included in the previously published meta-analyses.¹⁰,¹¹

Abbreviations: D, diopters; LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; SD, standard deviation; SE, refractive spherical equivalent; mo, months; WF, wave front; wk, weeks; preop, preoperative; intraop, intraoperative.