ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2006
[Selective retina therapy: methods, technique, and online dosimetry].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statement and supplementary statement from the BVA, the DOG, and the RG on laser treatment of drusen in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) : August 2017, update October 2018.Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Review
- Functional and morphological outcome in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy treated by subthreshold micropulse laser.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017Article
- [Statement from the BVA, the DOG and the RG on laser treatment of drusen in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) : August 2017].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Review
- A Comparative Study of Retinal Function in Rabbits after Panretinal Selective Retina Therapy versus Conventional Panretinal Photocoagulation.Journal of ophthalmology · 2015Article
- [Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists as treatment option for acute and chronic central serous chorioretinopathy].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2014Observational
- [Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC)].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selective retina therapy (SRT) is currently under evaluation, as a new and very subtle laser method, for the treatment of retinal disorders associated with a degradation of the retinal pigmentary epithelium (RPE). SRT makes it possible to selectively effect the RPE, sparing the adjacent neural retina with the photoreceptors and also the choroid below the RPE. In the best case, the therapy leads to regeneration of the RPE and a long-term metabolic increase at the chorio-retinal junction. In contrast to conventional laser photocoagulation, which is associated with complete thermal necrosis of and around the treated site, absolutely no scotoma occurs in SRT. This paper reviews the methods and mechanisms behind the selective effects of the RPE. In vitro and preclinical results are used to describe the bandwidth of selective effects with respect to different irradiation settings. An optoacoustic technique is introduced to visualize effects that cannot be seen by ophthalmoscopy and to facilitate dosimetry control without recourse to angiography completes the report.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.