SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2015
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling vs no peeling for Macular Hole-induced Retinal Detachment (MHRD): a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2017Pooled it
- The impact of preoperative choroidal detachment on short-term surgical outcomes in highly myopic macular hole retinal detachment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A Comparison of Face-Down Positioning and Adjustable Positioning After Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Macular Hole Retinal Detachment in High Myopia.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of Vitreal Tamponade on Functional Outcomes in Vitrectomy with ILM Peeling in Primary Macula-Involving Retinal Detachment: A Retrospective Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundwe conducted our meta-analysis of published studies to assess existing evidence about the efficacy and safety of vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. that of vitrectomy with no ILM peeling for Macular hole-induced retinal detachment.
methodsDatabases, including Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, Wanfang and CNKI, were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes following vitrectomy with ILM peeling and that with no ILM peeling for macular hole-induced retinal detachment. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1.
resultsSix comparative studies comprising 180 eyes were identified. It was indicated that the rate of retinal reattachment (Odds ratio (OR) = 3.03, 95 % Confidence interval (CI):1.35 to 6.78; P = 0.007) and macular hole closure (OR = 6.74, 95 % CI:3.26 to 13.93; P < 0.001) after initial surgery was higher and the rate of recurrent retinal detachment (OR = 0.08, 95 % CI:0.02 to 0.30; P = 0.0002) was lower in the group of vitrectomy with ILM peeling than that in the group of vitrectomy with no ILM peeling. However, the improved BCVA (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.14, 95 % CI: -0.20 to 0.47; P = 0.42) and the rate of postoperative complications were similar between the two groups.
conclusionVitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling is an efficient and safe procedure for macular hole-induced retinal detachment.
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.