Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24046168›Full record

ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2013

[Neuroprotective approaches].

S Thaler, C Haritoglou, F Schuettauf

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 55% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S ThalerDepartment für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Schleichstr. 12-16, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland, sebastian.thaler@uni-tuebingen.de.
C Haritoglou
F Schuettauf
University of Tübingen · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After introduction of vitreoretinal surgery more than 40 years ago, further development of the procedure involved a continuous reduction of potential toxic effects by irrigating solutions, endoillumination or mechanical manipulation. Recently, additional efforts were made to prevent neurodegeneration via pharmacological intervention. Taurine as additive for irrigating solutions can be considered as an example for neuroprotectants in vitreoretinal surgery. Approval of neuroprotective agents demands an increased effort for preclinical and clinical evaluation. To date, only few neuroprotective substances are used in clinical routine in the context of vitreoretinal surgery, however, experimental data suggest a high potential of various neuroprotective agents. The following article gives an overview of current neuroprotective approaches feasible for vitreoretinal surgery and a critical analysis of their clinical relevance.

Indexed as

HumansIntravitreal InjectionsNeuroprotective AgentsOphthalmic SolutionsPostoperative ComplicationsPremedicationRetinal DiseasesTaurineVitreoretinal SurgeryNeuroprotective AgentsOphthalmic SolutionsTaurine

Identifiers

PMID24046168
OpenAlexW3189401983

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.