Long-term effects of mitomycin-C on residual aberration and optical quality after photorefractive keratectomy in eyes with low to moderate myopia

Mitomycin C application after photorefractive keratectomy in high, moderate, or low myopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

“…All studies were low risk in random sequence generation except[ 23 ] with high risk and[ 6 18 24 25 26 ] with insufficient data to permit judgment regarding selection bias. All articles were low risk in allocation concealment except four articles,[ 24 32 33 34 ] which have insufficient data making it unlikely to judge. It was unclear to judge the four studies[ 18 32 33 34 ] regarding blinding participants and personnel.…”

“…All articles were low risk in allocation concealment except four articles,[ 24 32 33 34 ] which have insufficient data making it unlikely to judge. It was unclear to judge the four studies[ 18 32 33 34 ] regarding blinding participants and personnel. All studies were at low risk of bias in the blinding of outcome assessment except one study,[ 34 ] which had insufficient data to permit judgment.…”

“…All studies were at low risk of bias in the blinding of outcome assessment except one study,[ 34 ] which had insufficient data to permit judgment. All studies were at low risk of bias regarding incomplete outcome data except two studies[ 16 24 ] with high risk and four studies[ 11 12 32 33 ] with insufficient data to permit judgment. Two studies[ 16 24 ] were at high risk of bias in selective reporting, and four studies[ 11 21 32 33 ] were unclear.…”

Mitomycin C for the prevention of corneal haze in photorefractive keratectomy: a meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

“…A total of 227 articles were reviewed from electronic databases; finally, 17 articles were included according to the aforementioned criteria. Eleven RCTs (Carones et al 2002; Gambato et al 2005; Morales et al 2006; Leccisotti 2008; Gambato et al 2011; Hofmeister et al 2013; Shojaei et al 2013; Mohammadi et al 2014; Sia et al, 2014; Bedei et al 2006; Mohammadi et al 2019), five cohort studies (Nassiri et al 2008; Baz et al 2013; Sy et al 2014; Liu et al 2014; Torricelli et al 2016, and one case–control study (Kremer et al, 2012) were identified as 16 full‐texts and one conference abstract (Liu et al 2014). One review reported early‐onset haze found at 3 months and late‐onset haze which appeared 6 months postoperatively (Arranz‐Marquez et al 2019); however, we considered two different time points (6‐ and 12‐month) as two independent outcomes in our meta‐analysis.…”

“…S2; Table S1, Table S2) summarizes the risk of bias evaluation from included studies. Five RCTs had low risk in random sequence generation and allocation concealment (Carones et al 2002; Bedei et al 2006; Leccisotti 2008; Hofmeister et al 2013; Shojaei et al 2013), while other just revealed randomization without allocation disclosure (Gambato et al 2005; Morales et al 2006; Gambato et al 2011; Sia et al, 2014; Mohammadi et al 2014; Mohammadi et al 2019). There were six RCTs that described blinding of outcome assessment (Carones et al 2002; Bedei et al 2006; Morales et al 2006; Leccisotti 2008; Hofmeister et al 2013; Shojaei et al 2013), while others presented unclear methods.…”