Wittpenn 2008.
Methods | Study design: Parallel group RCT | |
Participants |
Country: USA Setting: Eye hospital Intervention: NSAIDs plus steroids
Comparator: Steroids plus placebo
Inclusion criteria: Scheduled to undergo cataract surgery; 20/20 BCVA potential without any evidence of macular abnormality, including age‐related macular changes, epiretinal membranes, or other retinal‐vascular anomalies. Exclusion criteria: Systemic diseases with ocular manifestations of the disease (e.g. diabetic patients with normal retinal exams were not excluded); vitreous loss or capsular disruption/rupture occurred during surgery; postoperative day 1, the surgeon felt the amount of inflammation was greater than expected and, in his best clinical judgment, more aggressive anti‐inflammatory treatment was indicated. Pretreatment: Quote: "There were no statistically significant between‐group differences in any demographic variable." But no data reported. Eyes: One eye, unclear how selected. |
|
Interventions |
Intervention: NSAIDs plus steroids
Comparator: Steroids plus placebo
The comparator group: "...also received four drops of ketorolac 0.4% one hour prior to cataract surgery." Type of surgery: Phacoemulsification |
|
Outcomes |
Follow‐up: 4 weeks
|
|
Contact details |
Authors name: John R. Wittpenn Institution: State University of New York at Stony Brook Email: jrwittpenn@aol.com Address: State University of New York at Stony Brook, 2500 Route 347, Building 24, Stony Brook, NY 11790 |
|
Notes |
Funding sources: "This study was supported by an unrestricted education grant from Allergan Inc, Irvine, Calfiornia." Declaration of interest: "The authors indicate no financial conflict of interest." Date study conducted: June 2005 to August 2006 Trial registration number: NCT00348244 Contacting study investigators: Trial authors not contacted. |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a randomly generated list of patient identification numbers." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "A central coordination center (IMEDS Inc, Riverside, California, USA; [M.E.]) generated the allocation sequence, enrolled participants, and assigned participants to their treatment groups." |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: "The patients and technical staff were unmasked because regulations prevented the medications from being repackaged into similar, unmarked bottles. The labels were covered but the technicians were capable of recognizing the bottle color and shape. Patients, however, would only have been unmasked if they researched the type and shape of the different bottles." |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "All investigators were masked with regard to treatment group." |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Judgement comment: Very low follow‐up at 6 weeks. "Of the 546 patients who entered the study, 77 patients also returned for the week‐6 visit, 35 in the ketorolac/steroid group and 42 in the steroid group." |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Judgement comment: No access to protocol and trial registry entry did not include outcomes. |