Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22960949›Full record

Trial reportGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2013

A prospective, randomised, multicenter trial for surgical treatment of central retinal vein occlusion: results of the Radial Optic Neurotomy for Central Vein Occlusion (ROVO) study group.

Tina Aggermann, Simon Brunner, Ilse Krebs, Paulina Haas, Irene Womastek, Werner Brannath, Susanne Binder, ROVO Study Group

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tina AggermannDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rudolf Foundation Clinic, Juchgasse 25, 1030 Vienna, Austria. tina.aggermann@wienkav.at
Simon Brunner
Ilse Krebs
Paulina Haas
Irene Womastek
Werner Brannath
Susanne Binder
ROVO Study Group
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Retinology and Biomicroscopic Laser Surgery · ATStatistics Austria · ATRudolfinerhaus Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the surgical outcomes and evaluate the effectiveness of two treatments for central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), radial optic neurotomy (RON) and intravitreal triamcinolone (IVT), in comparison to natural history.

methodsA prospective, placebo-controlled, randomised and multi-center study. Patients with CRVO were treated in three groups - with either RON, a single intravitreal injection of 4 mg triamcinolone acetonide, or a placebo treatment. The main outcome measures were change of VA (visual acuity) and proportion of eyes with a significant improvement (defined as > 3 lines logMAR scale) of VA from baseline to month 12.

resultsNinety patients were included. Due to insufficient data, seven were excluded. Forty-seven percent (n = 18) of patients treated with RON showed an increase in VA, in comparison to 10 % (n = 2) of placebo-treated patients, and 20 % (n = 5) of patients treated with IVT. Significantly more patients showed an improvement in VA following RON than in the placebo group (p = 0.009). Significantly more patients showed an improvement in VA following RON than in the IVT group (p = 0.034). No significant difference was found when directly comparing improvement in VA following IVT and placebo (p = 0.667) treatment.Significantly (p = 0.007) more patients in the placebo group (35 %, n = 7) showed a deterioration (defined as > 3 lines LogMAR scale) in VA than patients in the RON group (8 %, n = 3).

conclusionOur study showed that following treatment with RON, patients with CRVO display a significantly better long-term VA than untreated patients and patients treated with a single dose of IVT.

Indexed as

FemaleFluorescein AngiographyGlucocorticoidsHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMaleOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresOptic NerveProspective StudiesRetinal Vein OcclusionTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeTriamcinolone AcetonideVisual AcuityVitrectomyGlucocorticoidsTriamcinolone Acetonide

Identifiers

PMID22960949
OpenAlexW2026424329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.