A Review of Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions Relevant to Orthoptic Practice. (3rd July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rowe, Fiona J.; Elliott, Sue; Gordon, Iris; Shah, Anupa
• Is Part Of: Strabismus. Volume 25:Number 3(2017)
• Page Start: 101
• Page End: 111
• Publication Date: 2017-07-03
• Subjects: Amblyopia -- Cochrane Library -- low vision -- protocol -- refractive error -- strabismus -- stroke -- systematic review; Strabismus -- Periodicals; Neurophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.762
• DOI: 10.1080/09273972.2017.1305424
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0927-3972

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Aim : To present an overview of the range of systematic reviews on intervention trials pertinent to orthoptic practice, produced by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group (CEV). Methods : We searched the 2016 Cochrane Library database (31.03.2016) to identify completed reviews and protocols of direct relevance to orthoptic practice. These reviews are currently completed and published, available onwww.thecochranelibrary.com (free to UK health employees) or via the CEV website(http://eyes.cochrane.org/) . Results : We found 27 completed CEV reviews across the topics of strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, and low vision. Seven completed CEV protocols addressed topics of strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, low vision, and screening. We found 3 completed Cochrane Stroke reviews addressing visual field loss, eye movement impairment, and age-related vision loss. Conclusions : The systematic review process presents an important opportunity for any clinician to contribute to the establishment of reliable, evidence-based orthoptic practice. Each review has an abstract and plain language summary that many non-clinicians find useful, followed by a full copy of the review (background, objectives, methods, results, discussion) with a conclusion section that is divided into implications for practice and implications for research. The current reviews provide patients/parents/carers with information about various different conditions and treatment options, but also provide clinicians with a summary of the available evidence on interventions, to use as a guide for both clinical practice and future research planning. The reviews identified in this overview highlight the evidence available for effective interventions for strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, and low vision or stroke rehabilitation as well as the gaps in the evidence base. Thus, a demand exists for future robust, randomized, controlled trials of such interventions of importance in orthoptic practice.