ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2015
[Drusen characteristics after internal limiting membrane peeling].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are some reports showing isolated cases of drusen regression after pars plana vitrectomy (ppV) with peeling of the internal limiting membrane (iLM). Drusen characteristics after iLM peeling was investigated in this study. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe data of 527 patients who had received iLM peeling between 2004 and 2012 were retrospectively collected and those patients with retinal drusen were selected for the study. Fundus photographs before and after vitrectomy due to a macular hole or epiretinal gliosis were compared and drusen arrangement in the peeling site was analyzed. The aim of the study was to show whether there was drusen regression 2-5 months after surgery.
resultsOut of the 527 patients 11 showed central macular drusen, 4 with confluent large drusen (> 63 µm diameter) and 7 with small hard drusen (≤ 63 µm diameter). One patient showed drusen regression after iLM peeling without any changes in the other eye and all other patients showed no differences in the drusen findings (n = 6) or even some additional drusen (n = 4) without drusen alterations in the other eye.
conclusionThe results of this study could not confirm some reports showing drusen regression after iLM peeling in the peeling site in general and there was only one single case of central drusen regression.
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.