Adequate performing and reporting of a systematic review with meta-analysis: Refractive outcomes after DMEK

Descripción del Articulo

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Burgueño-Montañes, Carmen, Chavez-Cruzado, Edward, Bouchikh-El Jarroudi, Rachid, Galvez-Olortegui, Tomas, Galvez-Olortegui, Jose
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2026
Institución:Cuerpo Médico Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo
Repositorio:Revista del Cuerpo Médico Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo
Lenguaje:español
OAI Identifier:oai:cmhnaaa_ojs_cmhnaaa.cmhnaaa.org.pe:article/2847
Enlace del recurso:https://cmhnaaa.org.pe/ojs/index.php/rcmhnaaa/article/view/2847
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:Queratoplastia endotelial de la membrana de Descemet
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Refractivos
Catarata
Oftalmología
Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty
Refractive Surgical Procedures
cataract
Ophthalmology
Descripción
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.
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).