Yuan 2004.
| Methods |
Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group, with one eye per participant randomised to one of the interventions Exclusions after randomisation: a total of 60 participants were originally randomised; the blue‐light filtering IOL group included 27 individuals (12 men, 15 women; as three patients were non‐compliant). No further details were provided. Losses to follow‐up: not reported How missing data were handled: not reported Reported power size calculation? no |
|
| Participants |
Baseline characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL group
Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL group
Inclusion criteria: people with senile cataract Exclusion criteria: not reported Comparison of study groups at baseline: there was no significant difference in visual acuities (0.80–1.02) between the yellow UV and ordinary UV IOL groups (P > 0.05) (note: it was unclear if this was at baseline or postoperative) |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL
Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL
|
|
| Outcomes | Visual acuity, spatial contrast sensitivity (Stereo Optical, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), colour vision (FM‐100, Munsell, New Windsor, New York, U.S.A.), and subjective sensation at one week to six months postoperatively Participants were questioned about photophobia and cyanopsia. |
|
| Identification |
Sponsorship source: Funding sources: not reported Declaration of interest: not reported Country: China Setting: Tianjin Medical University Eye Center Comments: Date study conducted: not reported Trial registration number: not reported Contacting study investigators: authors contacted on 14 August 2017 regarding the contrast sensitivity outcome unit of error; no response was received to this email, and as a result we could not include these data in the meta‐analysis First author's name: Zhaoxu Yuan, MD, PhD Institution: Medical Research Building, Scottand White Hospital Email: zyuan@tamu.edu Corresponding author's address: Zhaoxu Yuan Medical Research Building, Scottand White Hospital 702 SW HK Dodgen Loop, Temple, TX, USA 76504 |
|
| Notes | None | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Judgement comment: not reported how list was generated. Study is described as “randomised” but with no further details |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Judgement comment: not reported how allocation administered. Study is described as “randomised” but with no further details |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Judgement comment: no information provided on masking. We assume that in absence of reporting on this, participants and personnel were not masked. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Judgement comment: no information provided on masking. We assume that in absence of reporting on this, outcome assessors were not masked. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Judgement comment: follow‐up not reported, although three participants in the blue‐light blocking IOL group were reported to be "non‐compliant" and appear to have been excluded from the analyses |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Judgement comment: no access to protocol or trials registry entry |
| Other bias | Low risk | Judgement comment: no other apparent sources of bias |
AAO: American Academy of Ophthalmology AMD: age‐related macular degeneration ARVO: Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology BCVA: best‐corrected visual acuity BMI: body mass index D: dioptre HRQoL: health‐related quality of life IOL: intraocular lens RCT: randomised controlled trial UCVA: uncorrected visual acuity