ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2014
Matched control study of visual outcomes after arteriovenous sheathotomy for branch retinal vein occlusion.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vitrectomy for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Article
- New Developments in the Classification, Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, Natural History, and Treatment of Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion.Journal of ophthalmology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate visual outcomes of arteriovenous sheathotomy for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
methodsThe medical records of 45 eyes from 45 patients who had undergone vitrectomy surgery with arteriovenous sheathotomy for BRVO were studied. Forty-five eyes of 45 patients with a BRVO but without intervention were studied as the control group. The best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness were compared between the two groups at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.
resultsImprovement of best-corrected visual acuity was 0.42 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units in the sheathotomy group and 0.22 logMAR units in the control group (P=0.007). The mean postoperative central macular thickness was significantly thinner in the sheathotomy group at 1 month (P=0.01), but not at 3, 6, and 12 months (P=0.75, P=0.81, and P=0.46, respectively). Improvement of best-corrected visual acuity at 12 months was significantly correlated with baseline best-corrected visual acuity, age, duration of symptoms, and sheathotomy (P<0.05).
conclusionArteriovenous sheathotomy for BRVO improves best-corrected visual acuity significantly more than the natural course of the BRVO disease process.
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.