IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0354670.html

OphthoEvidence report: Comparative effects of prophylactic strategies for post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Maryam Ghadimi
  • Dena Zeraatkar
  • João Pedro Lima
  • Jinhui Ma
  • Sunir Garg
  • Peter Kaiser
  • David Steel
  • Tien Yin Wong
  • Sobha Sivaprasad
  • Charles Wykoff
  • Varun Chaudhary

Abstract

Background: Endophthalmitis is a rare but serious complication of intravitreal injections (IVI). To mitigate the risk of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE), retinal specialists use different strategies, combining various prophylactic measures. However, existing systematic reviews have evaluated the effects of these measures in isolation, which does not consider their concurrent use in practice. A trustworthy systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) by providing a framework for simultaneous comparisons of different prophylactic combinations is essential to guide decision-making. Objectives: To present a protocol for addressing the comparative effects of different strategies for the prevention of PIE. Methods: We will search Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any strategy for preventing PIE with an alternative strategy, or placebo, or no prophylactic strategy in patients aged 18 years or older who received IVI of any pharmacological agent for any indication except treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis. Paired reviewers will independently screen studies, extract the data and assess risk of bias for each outcome that includes infectious endophthalmitis, confirmed endophthalmitis, any endophthalmitis, need for surgical intervention for management of PIE, and best-corrected visual acuity. For each outcome, when possible, we will conduct frequentist random-effects NMAs. We will assess the certainty of evidence and interpret findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Discussion: This systematic review and NMA will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the evidence addressing the effects of all available strategies for the prevention of PIE. Registration: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJC4U).

Suggested Citation

  • Maryam Ghadimi & Dena Zeraatkar & João Pedro Lima & Jinhui Ma & Sunir Garg & Peter Kaiser & David Steel & Tien Yin Wong & Sobha Sivaprasad & Charles Wykoff & Varun Chaudhary, 2026. "OphthoEvidence report: Comparative effects of prophylactic strategies for post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-11, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0354670
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0354670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0354670
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0354670&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0354670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0354670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.