2.3 Screening process, data extraction
For each eligible study, two independent reviewers (XKL and YJY)
independently used EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA,
USA) to screen titles and abstracts based on the inclusion and exclusion
criteria, and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third
reviewer (NS) when necessary. We extracted the data including the
baseline on included study characteristics (register number/trial name,
year of publication, country or countries, funding, duration),
population (disease, sample size by number of eyes, patient
demographics), intervention description (route of administration, dose)
and outcome (IOP). For IOP, the mean and standard deviation after
intervention of each study were extracted.
Quality assessment, the certainty of evidence
Two independent reviewers (XKL and YJY) independently used ROB 2 by
RevMan version 6.1 to independently assess the risk of bias of all
included studies,14 and the discrepancies were
resolved by discussion with a third reviewer (NS) when necessary. The
tool is used to determine the risk of bias in randomized trials,
including five types of bias risk: risk of bias arising from the
randomization process; risk of bias due to deviations from the intended
interventions; risk of bias due to missing outcome data; risk of bias in
measurement of the outcome; and risk of bias in selection of the
reported result. Each risk of bias evaluation dimension had three
classifications: low risk of bias, some concerns, or high risk of bias.