Refractive error evidence gap map

Man with glasses on.

What this map shows

At Sightsavers, our EGMs summarise, appraise, and present evidence from systematic or literature reviews.

The refractive error gap map summarises evidence from 91 reviews. Three reviews covered more than one thematic area and were therefore included in the EGM more than once. 43 reviews address treatment of refractive error, 17 address the burden of disease (epidemiology) and 13 cover risk/prevention of refractive error. The remainder address screening (11), quality of life (five), quality of clinical care (four), quality of non-clinical care (two), and cost benefit (one).

This gap map shows that there are clear gaps in evidence at the health-systems sector level. No reviews were identified around access to health care services.

In response to the authors’ research questions, 58 reviews provide strong evidence, 20 reviews show weak or no evidence; and in 16 reviews the results are inconclusive (mixed results). The reviews were assessed for quality: 44 reviews are medium quality; 28 reviews are graded low quality; and 19 reviews are of high methodological quality.

A young girl gets her eyes checked by a health worker

How to read an evidence gap map


Read our how to guide

Read our how to guide

Are we missing a systematic review?

This evidence gap map was last updated in 2022.
Help us keep this gap map up to date by sending us an email: [email protected]

Reference

Sightsavers (2022). Refractive Error Evidence Gap Map [online] Available at: https://research.sightsavers.org/evidence-gap-maps/refractive-error-gap-map/ [Add date accessed]

Our research is guided by our five year strategy

How we work