Appraisal by CHAYANAT OUIJALERN

At least 2.2 billion people

with vision impairment

• Unaddressed refractive error (123.7 million)

• Cataract (65.2 million)

• Glaucoma (6.9 million)

At least 1 billion people

• Corneal opacities (4.2 million)

with vision impairment

• Diabetic Retinopathy (3 million)

that could have been prevented

• Trachoma (2 million)

or has yet to be addressed • Unaddressed presbyopia (826 million)

This treatable condition is

the leading cause of blindness globally,

and the second leading cause of MSVI

World report on vision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Research problem
• As the trend towards outpatient surgical care expands, it is essential to investigate
and seek for evidence-based evaluation “ same-day or next-day postoperative
follow-up is more optimal after uncomplicated cataract surgery ”

• This study will assess the impact of timing on patient safety and surgical
outcomes, providing insights into the approach for postoperative care.

Postoperative Follow-up

Cataract surgery Same-day

KEYWORD
Outcome Next-day
 Search literature
“ ((((((cataract surgery) OR (cataract extraction)) AND (post operative)) AND (outcome)) AND (same day)) AND (day one)) AND (follow up) ”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rss/search/1dKORAZbU5vwmu5yNq_EG4s1-Wzy4ka4grd98NfUDztyPCik6q/?limit=15&utm_campaign=pubmed-2&fc=20230814050802
 PICO

Population Intervention Comparison Outcome

Patients who Same-day
One-day
Postoperative
underwent follow-up after follow-up after outcomes

uncomplicated uncomplicated uncomplicated and

cataract surgery. cataract surgery. cataract surgery. management

Section A: Are the results of the study valid?
1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue?
Section A: Are the results of the study valid?
2. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way?
3. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias?
Section A: Are the results of the study valid?
Section A: Are the results of the study valid?
4. Was the outcome accurately measured to minimise bias?
Section A: Are the results of the study valid?
5. Have the authors identified all important confounding factors?
6. Was the follow up of subjects complete enough?
Section B: What are the results?

7. What are the results of this study?

8. How precise are the results?
Section B: What are the results?

7. What are the results of this study?

8. How precise are the results?
Section B: What are the results?

7. What are the results of this study?

8. How precise are the results?
Section B: What are the results?

9. Do you believe the results?

Section C: Will the results help locally?
10. Can the results be applied to the local population?
11. Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence?
12. What are the implications of this study for practice?
Section C: Will the results help locally?
12. What are the implications of this study for practice?
REFERENCE
1. Miller KM, Oetting TA, Tweeten JP, Carter K, Lee BS, Lin S, Nanji AA, Shorstein NH, Musch DC; American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Cataract/
Anterior Segment Panel. Cataract in the Adult Eye Preferred Practice Pattern. Ophthalmology. 2022 Jan;129(1):P1-P126. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.10.006. Epub 2021
Nov 12. PMID: 34780842.

2. Zhang JH, Ramke J, Lee CN, Gordon I, Sa S, Lingham G, Evans JR, Keel S. A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cataract: Evidence to Support the
Development of the WHO Package of Eye Care Interventions. Vision (Basel). 2022 Jun 20;6(2):36. doi: 10.3390/vision6020036. PMID: 35737423; PMCID: PMC9227019.

3. World report on vision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

4. Rossi T, Romano MR, Iannetta D, Romano V, Gualdi L, D'Agostino I, Ripandelli G. Cataract surgery practice patterns worldwide: a survey. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021 Jan
13;6(1):e000464. doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000464. PMID: 33501377; PMCID: PMC7812090.

5. Ingram RM, Banerjee D, Traynar MJ, Thompson RK. Day-case cataract surgery. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K (1962). 1980 Apr;100(Pt 1):205-9. PMID: 7022778.
fi