Appraising the quality of systematic reviews for age-related macular degeneration interventions a systematic review

JAMA Ophthalmology

Volumn 136, Issue 9, 2018, Pages 1051-1061

  Downie, Laura E ^a   Makrai, Eve ^a   Bonggotgetsakul, Yokim ^a   Dirito, Lucy J ^a   Kristo, Kresimir ^a   Pham, Minh An N ^a   You, Mina ^a   Verspoor, Karin ^b   Pianta, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; MACULAR DEGENERATION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH REPORT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85051938666     PISSN: 21686165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.2620     Document Type: Review

References (110)

1. Coleman HR, Chan CC, Ferris FL III, Chew EY. Age-related macular degeneration. Lancet. 2008; 372(9652):1835-1845. Doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08) 61759-6
2. Ferris FL III, Wilkinson CP, Bird A, et al; Beckman Initiative for Macular Research Classification Committee. Clinical classification of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013;120 (4):844-851. Doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.036
3. Hassell JB, Lamoureux EL, Keeffe JE. Impact of age related macular degeneration on quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(5):593-596. Doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.086595
4. Wong WL, Su X, Li X, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106-e116. Doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(13) 70145-1
5. Brown DM, Michels M, Kaiser PK, Heier JS, Sy JP, Ianchulev T; ANCHOR Study Group. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results of the ANCHOR study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(1):57-65. Doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.10.018
6. Mitchell P, Bressler N, Doan QV, et al. Estimated cases of blindness and visual impairment from neovascular age-related macular degeneration avoided in Australia by ranibizumab treatment. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e101072. Doi:10.1371/journal .pone.0101072
7. Ferris FL, Davis MD, Clemons TE, et al; Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Research Group. A simplified severity scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS Report No. 18. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(11):1570-1574. Doi:10.1001/archopht.123.11.1570
8. Downie LE, Keller PR. Nutrition and age-related macular degeneration: research evidence in practice. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91(8):821-831. Doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000285
9. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(10):1417-1436. Doi:10.1001/archopht.119.10.1417
10. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, RichardsonWS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. Doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
11. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1576-1583. Doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
12. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Med. 2009;6(11):e1000141. Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed .1000141
13. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). NHMRC Levels of Evidence and Grades for Recommendations for Developers of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc-levels-grades-evidence-120423.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2017.
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-269, W64. Doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
15. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013-1020. Doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009
16. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2 (12):e1350. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001350
17. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013;2:4. Doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-4
18. van der Pol CB, McInnes MD, Petrcich W, Tunis AS, Hanna R. Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews andmeta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates? PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119892. Doi:10 .1371/journal.pone.0119892
19. Cullis PS, Gudlaugsdottir K, Andrews J. A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175213. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175213
20. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38(5):518-526. Doi:10.1067/mem.2001.115881
21. Pölkki T, Kanste O, Kääriäinen M, Elo S, Kyngäs H. The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(3-4): 315-332. Doi:10.1111/jocn.12132
22. Downie L, Bonggotgetsakul Y, Dirito L, Kristo K, Pham M, You M. A systematic appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). National Institute for Health Research. Http://www.crd.york.ac .uk/PROSPERO/display-record.php?ID =CRD42017065453. Accessed May 30, 2018.
23. Faggion CM Jr. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):63. Doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0062-6
24. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, et al; ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234. Doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
25. Ozkaya A, Alkin Z, Karakucuk Y, Yasa D, Yazici AT, Demirok A. Bevacizumab versus ranibizumab on as-needed treatment regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Turkish patients. ISRN Ophthalmol. 2013;2013:151027. Doi:10.1155/2013/151027
26. Andriolo RB, Puga ME, Belfort Jónior R, Atallah AN. Bevacizumab for ocular neovascular diseases: a systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009;127(2): 84-91. Doi:10.1590/S1516-31802009000200006
27. Anothaisintawee T, Leelahavarong P, Ratanapakorn T, Teerawattananon Y. The use of comparative effectiveness research to inform policy decisions on the inclusion of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular diseases in Thailand's pharmaceutical benefit package. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:361-374. Doi:10.2147/CEOR .S37458
28. Arnold JJ, HeriotW. Age related macular degeneration. BMJ Clin Evid. 2007;2007:0701.
29. Aronow ME, Chew EY. Age-related Eye Disease Study 2: perspectives, recommendations, and unanswered questions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25(3):186-190. Doi:10.1097/ICU .0000000000000046
30. Ba J, Peng RS, Xu D, et al. Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for treatingwet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. DrugDesDevel Ther. 2015;9:5397-5405.
31. Barbosa BRD, Barbosa SF, Tavares GD, et al. Critical evaluation of the off-label indication and of the risks associated to the use of multi-dose vials on the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2014;50(1). Doi:10.1590/S1984-82502011000100006
32. Bekkering GE, Rutjes AW, Vlassov VV, et al. The effectiveness and safety of proton radiation therapy for indications of the eye: a systematic review. Strahlenther Onkol. 2009;185(4):211-221. Doi:10.1007/s00066-009-1900-4
33. Beri A, Sural N, Mahajan SB. Non-atheroprotective effects of statins: a systematic review. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2009; 9(6):361-370. Doi:10.2165/11315710-000000000-00000
34. Chen G, Li W, Tzekov R, Jiang F, Mao S, Tong Y. Bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Retina. 2015;35(2): 187-193. Doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000000301
35. Chin-Yee D, Eck T, Fowler S, Hardi A, Apte RS. A systematic review of as needed versus treat and extend ranibizumab or bevacizumab treatment regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(7):914-917. Doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-306987
36. Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, Takeda A, Clegg AJ, Price A. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(16):iii-iv, ix-201. Doi:10.3310/hta12160
37. Cruess AF, Zlateva G, Pleil AM, Wirostko B. Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, treatment modifications and pharmacoeconomic properties. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87(2):118-132. Doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008 .01218.x
38. Danyliv A, Glanville J, McCool R, Ferreira A, Skelly A, Jacob RP. The clinical effectiveness of ranibizumab treat and extend regimen in nAMD: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2017;34(3):611-619. Doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0484-0
39. Evans J. Antioxidant supplements to prevent or slow down the progression of AMD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eye (Lond). 2008;22(6): 751-760. Doi:10.1038/eye.2008.100
40. Evans JR, Lawrenson JG. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD000254.
41. Evans JR, Sivagnanavel V, Chong V. Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD004004.
42. Gehlbach P, Li T, Hatef E. Statins for age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(8):CD006927.
43. Geltzer A, Turalba A, Vedula SS. Surgical implantation of steroids with antiangiogenic characteristics for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD005022.
44. Gerding H. Long-term results of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in wet AMD: a meta-analysis. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2016;233(4):471-474. Doi:10.1055/s-0041-111835
45. Giansanti F, Eandi CM, Virgili G. Submacular surgery for choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(2):CD006931.
46. Hodge WG, Barnes D, Schachter HM, et al. Evidence for the effect of omega-3 fatty acids on progression of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. Retina. 2007;27(2):216-221. Doi:10.1097/01.iae.0000233322.83713.2d
47. Ip MS, Scott IU, Brown GC, et al; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor pharmacotherapy for age-related macular degeneration: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(10):1837-1846. Doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.012
48. Jiang S, Park C, Barner JC. Ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis of dose effects and comparison with no anti-VEGF treatment and bevacizumab. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014;39(3):234-239. Doi:10.1111/jcpt.12146
49. Kim SJ, Jampel H. Prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in non-diabetic and diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016; 161:221-222. Doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.10.005
50. Kodjikian L, Decullier E, Souied EH, et al. Bevacizumab and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: an updated meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(10):1529-1537. Doi:10.1007/s00417-014-2764-6
51. Lawrenson JG, Evans JR. Omega 3 fatty acids for preventing or slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(4):CD010015.
52. Liu R, Wang T, Zhang B, et al. Lutein and zeaxanthin supplementation and association with visual function in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;56 (1):252-258. Doi:10.1167/iovs.14-15553
53. Ma L, Liu R, Du JH, Liu T, Wu SS, Liu XH. Lutein, zeaxanthin and meso-zeaxanthin supplementation associated with macular pigment optical density. Nutrients. 2016;8(7):E426. Doi:10.3390/nu8070426
54. Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, Moore D, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C. Clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(9):v-vi, 1-98. Doi:10.3310/hta7090
55. Micieli JA, Micieli A, Smith AF. Identifying systemic safety signals following intravitreal bevacizumab: systematic review of the literature and the Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Database. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45(3):231-238. Doi:10 .3129/i10-027
56. Mikacic I, Bosnar D. Intravitreal bevacizumab and cardiovascular risk in patients with age-related macular degeneration: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Drug Saf. 2016;39(6):517-541. Doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0408-y
57. Mitchell P. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety outcomes of anti-VEGF agents used for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration: comparison of ranibizumab and bevacizumab. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(7): 1465-1475. Doi:10.1185/03007995.2011.585394
58. Moja L, Lucenteforte E, Kwag KH, et al. Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (9):CD011230.
59. Parodi MB, Virgili G, Evans JR. Laser treatment of drusen to prevent progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD006537.
60. Penedones A, Mendes D, Alves C, Batel Marques F. Safety monitoring of ophthalmic biologics: a systematic review of pre-and postmarketing safety data. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2014;30(9):729-751. Doi:10.1089/jop.2013.0206
61. Poku E, Rathbone J, Wong R, et al. The safety of intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy in adult ophthalmic conditions: systematic review. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e005244. Doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005244
62. Sarwar S, Clearfield E, Soliman MK, et al. Aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2: CD011346.
63. Schmid MK, Bachmann LM, Fäs L, Kessels AG, Job OM, Thiel MA. Efficacy and adverse events of aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration: a trade-off analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(2):141-146. Doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305149
64. Schmucker C, Ehlken C, Agostini HT, et al. A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus goldstandard. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42701. Doi:10.1371/journal .pone.0042701
65. Schmucker C, Ehlken C, Hansen LL, Antes G, Agostini HT, Lelgemann M. Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) vs. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010;21(3):218-226. Doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283386783
66. Schmucker C, Loke YK, Ehlken C, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) versus ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a safety review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(3):308-317. Doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.178574
67. Schmucker CM, Rücker G, Sommer H, et al. Treatment as required versus regular monthly treatment in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(9): e0137866. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137866
68. Schouten JS, La Heij EC, Webers CA, Lundqvist IJ, Hendrikse F. A systematic review on the effect of bevacizumab in exudative age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247(1):1-11. Doi:10.1007/s00417-008-0952-y
69. Seguin-Greenstein S, Lightman S, Tomkins-Netzer O. A meta-analysis of studies evaluating visual and anatomical outcomes in patients with treatment resistant neovascular age-related macular degeneration following switching to treatment with aflibercept. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:4095852. Doi:10.1155/2016/4095852
70. Senra H, Ali Z, Balaskas K, Aslam T. Psychological impact of anti-VEGF treatments for wet macular degeneration-a review. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(10):1873-1880. Doi:10.1007/s00417-016-3384-0
71. Shin HJ, Kim SN, Chung H, Kim TE, Kim HC. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and retinal nerve fiber layer loss in eyes with age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57 (4):1798-1806. Doi:10.1167/iovs.15-18404
72. Si JK, Tang K, Bi HS, et al. Combination of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy vs ranibizumab monotherapy in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;7(3):541-549.
73. Sin HP, Liu DT, Lam DS. Lifestyle modification, nutritional and vitamins supplements for age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(1):6-11. Doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02357.x
74. Sivagnanavel V, Evans JR, Ockrim Z, Chong V. Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; (4):CD004004.
75. Solomon SD, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, Krzystolik MG, Hawkins BS. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (8):CD005139. Doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005139 .pub3
76. Solomon SD, Lindsley KB, Krzystolik MG, Vedula SS, Hawkins BS. Intravitreal bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: findings from a cochrane systematic review. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(1):70-77. Doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.002
77. Sophie R, Akhtar A, Sepah YJ, et al. Aflibercept: a potent vascular endothelial growth factor antagonist for neovascular age-related macular degeneration and other retinal vascular diseases. Biol Ther. 2012;2:3. Doi:10.1007/s13554-012-0003-4
78. Spooner K, Hong T, Wijeyakumar W, Chang AA. Switching to aflibercept among patients with treatment-resistant neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:161-177. Doi:10.2147/OPTH.S125676
79. Szabo SM, Hedegaard M, Chan K, et al. Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept for wet age-related macular degeneration: network meta-analysis to understand the value of reduced frequency dosing. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(11):2031-2042. Doi:10.1185/03007995.2015.1084909
80. Takeda AL, Colquitt J, Clegg AJ, Jones J. Pegaptanib and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(9):1177-1182. Doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.118562
81. Thulliez M, Angoulvant D, Le Lez ML, et al. Cardiovascular events and bleeding risk associated with intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibodies: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(11): 1317-1326. Doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2333
82. Tong Y, Zhao KK, Feng D, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of anti-VEGF monotherapy versus PDT and intravitreal anti-VEGF combination treatment in AMD: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(7):1028-1037.
83. Ueta T, Noda Y, Toyama T, Yamaguchi T, Amano S. Systemic vascular safety of ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2193-203.e1, 7. Doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.022
84. van der Reis MI, La Heij EC, De Jong-Hesse Y, Ringens PJ, Hendrikse F, Schouten JS. A systematic review of the adverse events of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. Retina. 2011;31(8):1449-1469. Doi:10.1097/IAE .0b013e3182278ab4
85. Vedula SS, Krzystolik MG. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor modalities for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD005139. Doi:10.1002/14651858 .CD005139.pub2
86. Virgili G, Michelessi M, Parodi MB, Bacherini D, Evans JR. Laser treatment of drusen to prevent progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (10):CD006537.
87. Vishwanathan R, Chung M, Johnson EJ. A systematic review on zinc for the prevention and treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(6):3985-3998. Doi:10.1167/iovs.12-11552
88. Wang W, Zhang X. Systemic adverse events after intravitreal bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109744. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109744
89. Wang WJ, Chen J, Zhang XL, et al. Bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(1):138-147.
90. Wang X, Jiang C, Zhang Y, Gong Y, Chen X, Zhang M. Role of lutein supplementation in the management of age-related macular degeneration: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ophthalmic Res. 2014;52(4):198-205. Doi:10.1159/000363327
91. Williams MA, McKay GJ, Chakravarthy U. Complement inhibitors for age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (1):CD009300.
92. Wormald R, Evans J, Smeeth L, Henshaw K. Photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD002030.
93. Wu B, Wu H, Liu X, Lin H, Li J. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab for ophthalmic diseases related to neovascularisation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS One. 2014;9(7): e101253. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101253
94. Zhang XY, Guo XF, Zhang SD, et al. Comparison of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;7(2):355-364.
95. Ziemssen F, Grisanti S, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Spitzer MS. Off-label use of bevacizumab for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: what is the evidence? Drugs Aging. 2009;26(4): 295-320. Doi:10.2165/00002512-200926040-00002
96. Yusuf S. Meta-analysis of randomized trials: looking back and looking ahead. Control Clin Trials. 1997;18(6):594-601. Doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(97) 00052-4
97. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9(5):R575-R582. Doi:10.1186/cc3803
98. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013;269(2): 413-426. Doi:10.1148/radiol.13130273
99. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280(3):278-280. Doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.278
100. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ. 2000;320(7234):537-540. Doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7234 .537
101. Campbell JM, Kavanagh S, Kurmis R, Munn Z. Systematic reviews in burns care: poor quality and gettingworse. J Burn Care Res. 2017;38(2):e552-e567. Doi:10.1097/BCR.0000000000000409
102. Elliott JH, Synnot A, Turner T, et al; Living Systematic Review Network. Living systematic review: 1: introduction-the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:23-30. Doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010
103. Thomas J, Noel-Storr A, Marshall I, et al; Living Systematic Review Network. Living systematic reviews: 2: combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:31-37. Doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi .2017.08.011
104. Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):193-201. Doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv044
105. Kim SN, Martinez D, Cavedon L, Yencken L. Automatic classification of sentences to support evidence based medicine. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12(2)(suppl 2):S5. Doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-S2-S5
106. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. Doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
107. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FAP, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(12):1250-1251. Doi:10.1056/NEJMe048225
108. World Medical Association.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. Doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053
109. Reveiz L, Cortés-Jofré M, Asenjo Lobos C, et al; Iberoamerican Cochrane Network. Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: study from highest ranked journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1216-1222. Doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.013
110. Liesegang TJ, Bartley GB. Toward transparency of financial disclosure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158 (5):855-857. Doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2014.09.014