Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of surgical and non-surgical management for ocular and peri-ocular study findings

From: Acute surgical vs non-surgical management for ocular and peri-ocular burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI)Relative effect (95% CI)No of participants (studies)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Assumed riskCorresponding risk
No surgery groupSurgery group
Visual acuity follow-upThe mean visual acuity on follow-up ranged across control groups from 0.01 to 0.41The mean visual acuity on follow-up in the intervention groups was 0.44 higher (0.07 to 0.81 higher)SMD 0.44 (0.07 to 0.81)262 (4 studies)
Lowb, c, d, e
Change in epithelial area (mm2)The mean change in epithelial area ranged across control groups from 26mm2 to 48mm2The mean change in epithelial area in the intervention groups was 1.37 higher (0.4 to 2.34 higher)SMD 1.37 (0.40 to 2.34)68 (2 studies)
Lowb, c, d
Healed epithelial defectMedium risk populationRR 1.22 (1.02 to 1.46)68 (2 studies)
Lowb, c, d
758 per 1000925 per 1000
(773 to 1000)
Wound/ocular infectionMedium risk populationRR 11.17 (1.28 to 597.85)173 (2 studies)
Moderateb, d
0 per 10000 per 1000
(0 to 0)
Symblepharon follow-upMedium risk populationRR 0.55 (0.26 to 1.15)312 (5 studies)
Moderatec, d
610 per 1000336 per 1000
(159 to 701)
Ectropion follow-upMedium risk populationRR 7.30 (0.80 to 66.42)259 (3 studies)
Lowb, c, e
67 per 1000487 per 1000
(53 to 1000)
Corneal vascularization follow-upMedium risk populationRR 0.64 (0.32 to 1.28)336 (6 studies)
Moderateb, c
42 per 100017 per 1000
(3 to 105)
  1. Patient or population: ocular, eyelid, eyelash, eyebrow burns
  2. Settings: inpatient or outpatient
  3. Intervention: surgery
  4. Comparison: medical management alone
  5. GRADE working group grades of evidence
  6. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
  7. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
  8. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
  9. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.
  10. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio, SMD Standard mean difference
  11. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
  12. bRisk of bias
  13. cInconsistency: heterogeneity > 50%
  14. dIndirectness: low diversity of patient population
  15. eImprecision: small event size
  16. fPublication bias: small study effects