ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2016
Radial optic neurotomy in treating central retinal vein occlusion: a Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rebalancing translaminar pressure difference: a novel glaucoma surgery-a pilot trial in non-human primates.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Long-term changes in the choroidal thickness in patients with unilateral central retinal vein occlusion.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Management of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion - The role of aflibercept.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the feasibility of radial optic neurotomy (RON) in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) treatment with a Meta-analysis.
methodsElectronic databases were searched for comprehensive articles that compared efficacy of RON with that of other treatments in CRVO. Study quality was assessed and risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with fix- or random-effects model were calculated according to the heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 200 eyes from 5 studies were included. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between groups with and without RON in improvement of visual acuity (VA) at 6mo follow-up (pooled RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 to 1.18, P=0.117) while improvement of VA showed significantly favourable in patients receiving RON treatment at 12mo follow-up (pooled RR 2.27, 95%CI 1.31 to 3.95, P=0.004). For complications, RON treatment was more effective in reducing neovascular glaucoma (pooled RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.97, P=0.042) but was comparable in retinal detachment (pooled RR 2.41, 95%CI 0.51 to 11.39, P=0.267) and vitreous hemorrhage (pooled RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.33 to 2.46, P=0.847).
conclusionCompared with some certain treatment modalities, RON might offer better VA at 12mo and decrease the rate of neovascular glaucoma without changing the rate of retinal detachment and vitreous hemorrhage. Further studies are required considering the limitation of the research.
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.