Table 2.
Outcomes of the meta-analysis
| Fixed model prevalence rate (%) | 95% CI (%) | Random model prevalence rate (%) | 95% CI (%) | I-squared value (%) | p value heterogeneity | Egger’s test (p value) | Begg’s test (p value) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual acuity | ||||||||
| Improvement | 67.5 | 59.1–75.0 | 77.2 | 54.4–90.6 | 86.0 | <0.01 | 0.22 | 0.14 |
| Deterioration | 4.5 | 1.8–10.8 | 4.5 | 1.8–10.8 | 0.00 | 0.62 | 1.00 | 0.49 |
| Complete restorationa | ||||||||
| Visual field deficit | ||||||||
| Improvement | 80.8 | 77.7–83.6 | 83.0 | 77.1–87.7 | 62.3 | <0.01 | 0.25 | 0.14 |
| Deterioration | 2.3 | 1.1–4.7 | 2.3 | 1.1–4.7 | 0.00 | 0.93 | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| Complete restoration | 40.4 | 34.8–46.3 | 37.8 | 26.4–50.8 | 0.00 | 73.2 | 0.72 | 0.40 |
| Unspecified vision | ||||||||
| Improvement | 80.9 | 77.9–83.6 | 81.7 | 77.1–85.6 | 38.8 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
| Deterioration | 2.0 | 1.1–3.4 | 2.0 | 1.1–3.4 | 0.00 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.74 |
| Complete restoration | 32.9 | 18.5–37.7 | 39.6 | 23.2–58.6 | 84.2 | <0.01 | 0.50 | 0.53 |
aComplete restoration of visual acuity was only reported in one study and therefore a meta-analysis was not possible