ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2015
Prognosis of patients with diabetic macular edema before Japanese approval of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2015. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of diabetic macular edema in Japan: a review and expert opinion.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2018Review
- Concentration of acute phase factors in vitreous fluid in diabetic macular edema.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2017Article
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
purposeTo examine the prognosis of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) before Japanese approval of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).
methodsThis retrospective study included 135 eyes of 115 patients who received treatments (photocoagulation, pharmacological treatments, vitrectomy) for DME between January 2003 and August 2012. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment was examined. BCVA was classified based on the decimal value of BCVA before treatment as good (BCVA > 0.7, BCVA = 0.7), moderate (BCVA > 0.7 but <0.2), or poor (BCVA < 0.2, BCVA = 0.2), and each prognosis of BCVA was investigated.
resultsThirty-five (25.9%) patients were classified with good BCVA, while 69 (51.1%) had moderate and 31 (23.0%) poor BCVA. Following 24 months of treatment, the averaged good BCVA maintained its value (0.0513 ± 0.0954 to 0.0773 ± 0.258). Similarly, the averaged moderate BCVA maintained its value (0.449 ± 0.169 to 0.441 ± 0.431), whereas the averaged poor BCVA significantly improved (1.070 ± 0.291 to 0.879 ± 0.361: p < 0.001). Specifically, the averaged BCVA of patients who initially received vitrectomy increased 0.380 logMAR after 24 months (0.859 ± 0.414 to 0.479 ± 0.549).
conclusionDME patients with good BCVA at the time of initial treatment generally maintained the averaged BCVA at 24 months, while patients with moderate BCVA did not significantly improve without a standard regimen of anti-VEGF therapy. However, the results indicate that early vitrectomy is a potential treatment option for DME patients with poor BCVA.
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.