Table 1.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Fig 1.
PRISMA flowchart for study selection.
Fig 2.
Risk of bias assessment of RCTs included in SLR.
Fig 3.
Evidence network for Base-case analysis: AcrySof vs. other hydrophobic acrylic, hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, and PMMA IOLs without optic edge classification*.
* Each node corresponds to an implant and nodes are connected by an edge if those implants have been compared in RCT. The numbers along the edges, and edge thickness, represent the number of RCTs informing that contrast. RCTs with more than two arms can contribute to multiple contrasts.
Fig 4.
Evidence network for sensitivity analysis: AcrySof vs. other hydrophobic acrylic, hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, and PMMA IOLs with edge classification into round or sharp edged*.
* Each node corresponds to an implant and nodes are connected by an edge if those implants have been compared in RCT. The numbers along the edges, and edge thickness, represent the number of RCTs informing that contrast. RCTs with more than two arms can contribute to multiple contrasts.
Table 2.
Base-case analysis: Number of eyes in each IOL group.
Fig 5.
Base-case analysis: Hazard ratios and 95% CrI for Nd:YAG comparing IOL materials vs. AcrySof IOL without optic edge classification*.
* Bars represent the hazard ratio relative to AcrySof IOL. Solid lines represent 95% credible intervals.
Table 3.
Sensitivity analysis: number of eyes in each IOL group.
Fig 6.
Sensitivity analysis: Hazard ratios and 95% CrI for Nd:YAG comparing IOL materials with sharp/round edge classification vs. AcrySof IOL*.
*Bars represent the hazard ratio relative to AcrySof IOL. Solid lines represent 95% credible intervals.