Trial reportDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2010
[Comparison of superselective intraarterial fibrinolysis with conservative therapy. Use in patients with acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion].
Trial report in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Early Onset of Neovascular Glaucoma After Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis for Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: A Possible Complication?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The results of conservative treatment for central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) vary considerably and although local intraarterial fibrinolysis (LIF) is a promising treatment, outcomes have not been compared in randomized trials. The prospective randomized multicenter study by the European Assessment Group for Lysis in the Eye (EAGLE) is the first clinical trial to compare treatment outcomes of conservative standard treatment (CST) and LIF for acute non-arteritic CRAO. Patients (age 18-75 years) with CRAO present for less than 20 h and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) <0.5 logMAR were randomized to either CST or LIF group. Primary endpoint was BCVA after 1 month and secondary endpoint was safety. Mean BCVA (logMAR) improved significantly in both groups and did not differ between the groups. Because of similar efficacy and the higher rate of adverse events in the LIF group the study was halted after the first interim analysis. Due to the similar outcomes of the two therapies and the higher rate of adverse reactions associated with LIF superselective lysis cannot be recommended for the management of acute CRAO.
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.