ArticleBMC ophthalmology2015
Effect of diabetic retinopathy and diabetes on the intraocular straylight in pseudophakic eyes.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of corneal backward light scattering in type 2 diabetes mellitus.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Iterative-Trained Semi-Blind Deconvolution Algorithm to Compensate Straylight in Retinal Images.Journal of imaging · 2021Article
- Optical Quality and Intraocular Scattering in the Diabetic Eye without Diabetic Retinopathy.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to prove the relationship between the intraocular straylight level and diabetic retinopathy (DR) according to disease severity. Also, we aimed to evaluate whether diabetes mellitus (DM) per se could be a risk factor of increased intraocular straylight although we did not rely on a definite sign of DR in this study.
methodsIn this prospective comparative study, ninety three eyes were enrolled and divided into four groups as follows: Group 1 (26 eyes), without DR or DM; Group 2 (25 eyes), with DM but without DR; Group 3 (21 eyes), mild to moderate non-proliferative DR; and Group 4 (21 eyes), severe non-proliferative DR. To measure the intraocular straylight in an objective manner, the C-quant straylight meter was used to preoperatively and 2 months postoperatively in all patients who underwent phacoemulsification surgery. All the patients also underwent a macular optical coherence tomography and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) analysis. A comparison of straylight levels adjusted by age among four groups was performed postoperatively.
resultsThe postoperative level of intraocular straylight was statistically significantly different among four groups (P <0.05). When adjusted for ages, Group 4 showed the highest straylight level when compared with Group 3 and the other two groups (P <0.05). Group 1 showed the lowest straylight level in comparison with Group 2 and the other two groups (P <0.05). There was no significant correlation between HbA1c level, duration of diabetes and postoperative straylight level.
conclusionsThe level of intraocular straylight at 2 months postoperatively had a tendency to increase as the severity of DR increased. Additionally, the straylight level was higher in DM patients without DR than in patients without DM. Therefore, the severity of DR seemed to influence the intraocular straylight level. Although there is no definite sign of DR, DM per se can be a risk factor for increasing intraocular straylight. In conclusion, the level of intraocular straylight seems to be a sensitive test for detecting early retinal damage secondary to DM.
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.