Quality of Life After Laser Vision Correction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Rattachement africain : ir. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Purpose: To analyze patients’ quality of life (QOL) after laser vision correction (LVC) from a worldwide literature review. Methods: Studies of prospective or cross‐sectional design which evaluated QOL in patients after LVC and compared that to preoperative values or a matched group of emmetropes were included. The Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest were searched for relevant articles published until February 2024. The fixed‐ or random‐effects models were used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) for postoperative QOL changes. Meta‐regression was conducted for adjusting the effects of potential confounders. Results: A total of 11 peer‐reviewed articles (1753 patients) were included in the study. LVC improved QOL of patients at one (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.60), three (SMD = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.50), and six months after surgery (SMD = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.11). In meta‐regression analysis, QOL improvement was lower in older patients compared to younger ones ( β = −0.06, 95% CI: −0.11, −0.01). Also, no statistically significant difference was noted while comparing QOL in post–laser refractive surgery patients and emmetropes (SMD = −0.44, 95% CI: −0.95, 0.07). Conclusion: Patients undergoing LVC experience significant improvements in QOL, particularly in younger subjects, and achieve comparable QOL to individuals with emmetropia.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Quality of Life After Laser Vision Correction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2025
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.