Speaking at ASCRS 2016, Dr. Solomon said this updated analysis retrieved 4,474 references related to LASIK published between 2008 and 2015. Articles that included human clinical studies, primary procedures, visual and refractive outcomes in eyes without previous surgeries, and no presbyopia treatments were selected for further review.
Related: Is LASIK or contact lenses superior?
Of those, the study authors identified 213 manuscripts deemed pertinent. These were further qualified: 47/97 were rated highly relevant, 42/97 deems moderately relevant, and 8/97 were deemed to be of low relevance.
Ensuring bias was not present
Dr. Solomon noted the group also compared the results of their analyses to those of the FDA’s PROWL study. (The PROWL-1 study was a multiyear undertaking that examined patient-reported outcomes following LASIK. PROWL-1 evaluated responses from 262 military personnel, and the recently completed PROWL-2 evaluated responses from 312 non-military patients).
“We wanted to know if modern LASIK is better than our historical reviews,” Dr. Solomon explained. “Have we gotten better? Have our outcomes gotten better? How did our results compare to the PROWL study?”
The 97 articles included for the updated analysis comprised 67,893 eyes.
“We also looked to see what influence industry had,” Dr. Solomon said. “We found 33 articles that reported a financial interest aligned with industry, but industry did not have an affiliation with the studies, and no industry bias was found based on our meta-analysis.”