ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2015
A Comparative Study of Retinal Function in Rabbits after Panretinal Selective Retina Therapy versus Conventional Panretinal Photocoagulation.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multifocal electroretinogram changes after panretinal photocoagulation in early proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2024Article
- Long-Term Multimodal Imaging Analysis of Selective Retina Therapy Laser Lesions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Retinal pigment epithelial responses based on the irradiation density of selective retina therapy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Article
- Comparison of the tissue response of selective retina therapy with or without real-time feedback-controlled dosimetry.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2018Article
- Comparison of pre-retinal oxygen pressure changes after selective retina therapy versus conventional photocoagulation in the rabbit eye.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose. This study evaluates functional changes in electroretinographic findings after selective retina therapy (SRT) compared to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in rabbits. Methods. The right eyes of 12 Chinchilla rabbits received 200 laser treatment spots. The right eyes of six rabbits received SRT (SRT group), whereas the other six animals were treated using PRP on the right eye (PRP group). The eyes were investigated using full-field ERG 1 hour and 3 weeks after treatment. Histologic exam to assess the tissue response of lasers was performed on 3 weeks. Results. No significant changes in the mean ROD or CR b-wave amplitudes of the SRT lesions were evident, compared to baseline, 1 h after laser treatment (p = 0.372 and 0.278, resp.). In addition, the OPs and 30 Hz flickers of the SRT lesions were not significantly altered (p = 0.17 and 0.243, resp.). At 3 weeks, similar results were found. Comparing the two groups, the ROD b-wave amplitude was reduced in the PRP and SRT groups to 60.04 ± 4.2% and 92.32 ± 6.43% of baseline (p < 0.001). Histologically, there was no visible photoreceptor alterations on week 3. Conclusions. SRT in rabbit eyes induced less functional loss than PRP in both rod-mediated retinal function and cone-mediated retinal function. In addition, SRT irradiated eyes had no functional loss compared to its control.
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.