Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2015
Intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal bevacizumab in naive diabetic macular edema: a randomized double-masked clinical trial.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Topical ketorolac as an adjunctive treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab in the management of diabetic macular edema: A double-masked placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Trial
- Efficacy of systemic diclofenac sodium on intravitreal concentration.International ophthalmology · 2018Trial
- Intravitreal Diclofenac plus Bevacizumab versus Bevacizumab alone in treatment-naive diabetic macular edema: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.International ophthalmology · 2017Trial
- Review
- Comparison of topical nepafenac 0.1% with intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the treatment of Irvine-Gass syndrome.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Comparison of Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Intravitreal Diclofenac in the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: a 6-month Follow-up.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2017Article
- Solid Lipid Nanoparticles Improve the Diclofenac Availability in Vitreous after Intraocular Injection.Journal of drug delivery · 2016Article
- Neuroinflammatory responses in diabetic retinopathy.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2015Review
- Short-Term Effects of Adding Topical Ketorolac to Intravitreal Bevacizumab in Diabetic Macular Edema: A Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
- Intravitreal diclofenac versus intravitreal bevacizumab in persistent diabetic macular edema: Anatomical and functional outcome.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to compare single injection of intravitreal diclofenac (IVD) with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) in the treatment of eyes with naïve diabetic macular edema (DME). In this randomized clinical trial, 57 eyes of 57 patients were randomly assigned to IVD group (30 eyes), cases who received a single intravitreal injection of diclofenac (500 μg/0.1 ml), and IVB group (27 eyes), cases who received a single intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (1.25 mg). Change in best-corrected visual acuity in logMAR at week 12 was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included changes in central macular thickness, macular leakage, and potential injection-related complications. Best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly more in the IVD group than in the IVB group (P = 0.033), from 0.57 ± 0.25 to 0.49 ± 0.31 versus 0.55 ± 0.24-0.59 ± 0.27 logMAR at 12 weeks, respectively. However, the difference of macular thickness changes was in favor of IVB, but not to a significant level. The amount of change in leakage was not significantly different between the groups either. None of the eyes, in either group, developed ocular hypertension (≥23 mmHg) or cataract progression. No important injection-related complication was observed during the study period. This study demonstrated the superiority of IVD over IVB in the treatment of naïve DME regarding functional, but not anatomical outcomes. Therefore, using IVD as an adjunct or even alternative to other treatments might enhance the functional outcomes in such cases. Further studies are warranted to confirm potential benefit of IVD observed in this study.
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.