Abstract: We identified a large number of trials of laser photocoagulation of diabetic retinopathy (n = 83) but only five of these studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, i.e. they compared laser photocoagulation with currently available lasers to no (or deferred) treatment. Three studies were conducted in the USA, one study in the UK and one study in Japan. A total of 4786 people (9503 eyes) were included in these studies. The majority of participants in four of these trials were people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy; one trial recruited mainly people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Four of the studies evaluated panretinal photocoagulation with argon laser and one study investigated selective photocoagulation of non-perfusion areas. Three studies compared laser treatment to no treatment and two studies compared laser treatment to deferred laser treatment. All studies were at risk of performance bias because the treatment and control were different and no study attempted to produce a sham treatment. Three studies were considered to be at risk of attrition bias. At 12 months there was little difference between eyes that received laser photocoagulation and those allocated to no treatment (or deferred treatment), in terms of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.11; 8926 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence). Longer term follow-up did not show a consistent pattern, but one study found a 20% reduction in risk of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity at five years with laser treatment. Treatment with laser reduced the risk of severe visual loss by over 50% at 12 months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; 9276 eyes; 4 RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There was a beneficial effect on progression of diabetic retinopathy with treated eyes experiencing a 50% reduction in risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64; 8331 eyes; 4 RCTs, low quality evidence) and a similar reduction in risk of vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85; 224 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence). None of the studies reported near visual acuity or patient-relevant outcomes such as quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence or adverse effects such as retinal detachment. We did not plan any subgroup analyses, but there was a difference in baseline risk in participants with non-proliferative retinopathy compared to those with proliferative retinopathy. With the small number of included studies we could not do a formal subgroup analysis comparing effect in proliferative and non-proliferative retinopathy. This review provides evidence that laser photocoagulation is beneficial in treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We judged the evidence to be moderate or low, depending on the outcome. This is partly related to reporting of trials conducted many years ago, after which panretinal photocoagulation has become the mainstay of treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Future Cochrane Reviews on variations in the laser treatment protocol are planned. Future research on laser photocoagulation should investigate the combination of laser photocoagulation with newer treatments such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).

Plain-language summary: We found five studies. The searches were done in April 2014. Three studies were done in the USA, one study in the UK and one study in Japan. A total of 4786 people (9503 eyes) were included in these studies. Most participants had PDR. We found that moderate vision loss at 12 months was similar in eyes treated with laser and eyes that were not treated, but similar assessments made at a later date showed that eyes treated with laser were less likely to have suffered moderate vision loss. Treatment with laser reduced the risk of severe visual loss by over 50% at 12 months. There was a similar effect on the progression of DR. None of the studies reported patient-relevant outcomes such as pain or loss of driving licence. We did not find very many studies and those we found were done quite a long time ago when standards of trial conduct and reporting were lower. We judged the quality of the evidence to be low, with the exception of the results for severe visual loss, which we judged to be moderate quality evidence.