Background: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.Methods: The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.Discussion: The results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)—CRD42020219944

Background: Glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness worldwide, can be managed surgically when medical treatments are insufficient. Trabecular meshwork (TM)-based micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) has emerged as a less invasive surgical approach to lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) and managing glaucoma. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes the scientific literature and trials on TM-based MIGS techniques, including trabecular micro-bypass stents, goniotomy and trabeculotomy procedures, electrocautery and laser-based approaches, and ab interno canaloplasty. Among these techniques, efficacy, pivotal clinical trials, medication reduction, safety profiles, complications, and determinants of surgical success were examined. Results: While all TM-based MIGS devices assessed achieved meaningful IOP reduction compared with trabeculectomies, there was no consensus on which TM-based MIGS technique yielded the best outcomes. TM-based MIGS had a good safety profile compared with traditional glaucoma surgeries. Common postoperative complications included transient hyphema, corneal edema, and anterior chamber inflammation. Ultimately, the success of TM-based MIGS procedures depended on many factors, including surgical technique, device type, and patient-specific factors. Conclusions: TM-based MIGS are an effective and safe surgical management option for eligible glaucoma patients requiring moderate IOP reduction. Future research should focus on the long-term outcomes of MIGS procedures, compare MIS devices, and explore the mechanistic and histopathological changes induced by MIGS.