Background/aimsThis systematic review critically evaluated peer-reviewed publications describing morphological features consistent with, or using terms related to, a ‘neuroma’ or ‘microneuroma’ in the human cornea using laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM).MethodsThe review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160038). Comprehensive literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library in November 2019. The review included primary research studies and reviews that described laser-scanning IVCM for examining human corneal nerves. Papers had to include at least one of a pre-specified set of keyword stems, broadly related to neuromas and microneuromas, to describe a corneal nerve feature.ResultsTwenty-five papers (20 original studies; 5 reviews) were eligible. Three original studies evaluated corneal nerve features in healthy eyes. Most papers assessed corneal nerves in ocular and systemic conditions; seven studies did not include a control/comparator group. There was overlap in terminology used to describe nerve features in healthy and diseased corneas (eg, bulb-like/bulbous, penetration, end/s/ing). Inspection of IVCM images within the papers revealed that features termed ‘neuromas’ and ‘microneuromas’ could potentially be physiological corneal stromal-epithelial nerve penetration sites. We identified inconsistent definitions for terms, and limitations in IVCM image acquisition, sampling and/or reporting that may introduce bias and lead to inaccurate representation of physiological nerve characteristics as pathological.ConclusionThese findings identify a need for consistent nomenclature and definitions, and rigorous IVCM scanning and analysis protocols to clarify the prevalence of physiological, as opposed to pathological, corneal nerve features.

IMPORTANCE Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision impairment. It is imperative that AMD care is timely, appropriate, and evidence-based. It is thus essential that AMD systematic reviews are robust; however, little is known about the quality of this literature.OBJECTIVES To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of AMD intervention studies, and to evaluate their use for guiding evidence-based care.EVIDENCE REVIEW This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All studies that self-identified as a systematic review in their title or abstract or were categorized as a systematic review from a medical subject heading and investigated the safety, efficacy and/or effectiveness of an AMD intervention were included. Comprehensive electronic searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Study characteristics (publication year, type of intervention, journal, citation rate, and funding source) were extracted.FINDINGS Of 983 citations retrieved, 71 studies (7.6%) were deemed eligible. The first systematic review relating to an AMD intervention was published in 2003. More than half were published since 2014. Methodological quality was highly variable. The mean (SD) AMSTAR score was 5.8 (3.2) of 11.0, with no significant improvement over time (r = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.21; P = .83). Cochrane systematic reviews were overall of higher quality than reviews in other journals (mean [SD] AMSTAR score, 9.9 [1.2], n = 15 vs 4.7 [2.2], n = 56; P < .001). Overall, there was poor adherence to referring to an a priori design (22 articles [31%]) and reporting conflicts of interest in both the review and included studies (16 articles [23%]). Reviews funded by government grants and/or institutions were generally of higher quality than industry-sponsored reviews or where the funding source was not reported.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There are gaps in the conduct of systematic reviews in the field of AMD. Enhanced endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement by refereed journals may improve review quality and improve the dissemination of reliable evidence relating to AMD interventions to clinicians.

No abstract

No abstract