Adequate performing and reporting of a systematic review with meta-analysis: Refractive outcomes after DMEK
Presentation: This systematic literature review with meta-analysis by Augustin VA et al. (1), published in the Journal Cataract and Refractive Surgery in 2023 (Q1 in SJR), examines refractive changes after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Conclusions: Refractive change after...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2026 |
| País: | Perú |
| Institución: | Cuerpo Médico Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo |
| Repositorio: | Revista del Cuerpo Médico Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:cmhnaaa_ojs_cmhnaaa.cmhnaaa.org.pe:article/2847 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://cmhnaaa.org.pe/ojs/index.php/rcmhnaaa/article/view/2847 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Queratoplastia endotelial de la membrana de Descemet Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Refractivos Catarata Oftalmología Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Refractive Surgical Procedures cataract Ophthalmology |
| Sumario: | Presentation: This systematic literature review with meta-analysis by Augustin VA et al. (1), published in the Journal Cataract and Refractive Surgery in 2023 (Q1 in SJR), examines refractive changes after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Conclusions: Refractive change after DMEK is widely reported and should be considered during intraocular lens (IOL) calculation prior to cataract surgery alone or combined with DMEK. In the latter case a target refraction of -0.50 D is recommended to achieve emmetropia. Critical comment: The article addresses a very important issue; however, it has several methodological biases, especially related with the bibliographic search strategy, potential biases of included studies and adequate data reporting of the systematic review. The systematic review presented by Augustin VA et al. has poor methodological quality, with several biases and that could compromise the validity of the findings. |
|---|