ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2016
Sub-threshold micro-pulse diode laser treatment in diabetic macular edema: A Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monotherapy laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Standard threshold laser versus subthreshold micropulse laser for adults with diabetic macular oedema: the DIAMONDS non-inferiority RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- Diabetic macular edema (DME): dissecting pathogenesis, prognostication, diagnostic modalities along with current and futuristic therapeutic insights.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2024Review
- Settings and Clinical Applications of Subthreshold Micropulse Laser Therapy: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Subthreshold micropulse diode laser treatment in diabetic macular edema: biological impact, therapeutic effects, and safety.International ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Intravitreal injection of Conbercept combined with micropulse laser therapy enhances clinical efficacy in patients with diabetic macular edema.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
- Subthreshold Micropulse Laser for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Differential gene expression analysis using RNA sequencing: retinal pigment epithelial cells after exposure to continuous-wave and subthreshold micropulse laser.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Updates on the Current Treatments for Diabetic Retinopathy and Possibility of Future Oral Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- The Role of Focal Laser in the Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Era.Ophthalmology and eye diseases · 2017Review
- Persistent Diabetic Macular Edema: A Comprehensive Review of Current Treatments and Emerging Therapeutic Options.Journal of current 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine possible differences in clinical outcomes between sub-threshold micro-pulse diode laser photocoagulation (SDM) and traditional modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (mETDRS) treatment protocol in diabetic macular edema (DME).
methodsA comprehensive literature search using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify RCTs comparing SDM with mETDRS for DME. The participants were type I or type II diabetes mellitus with clinically significant macular edema treated by SDM from previously reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome measures were the changes in the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the central macular thickness (CMT) as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The secondary outcomes were the contrast sensitivity and the damages of the retina.
resultsSeven studies were identified and analyzed for comparing SDM (215 eyes) with mETDRS (210 eyes) for DME. There were no statistical differences in the BCVA after treatment between the SDM and mETDRS based on the follow-up: 3mo (MD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.09; P=0.77), 6mo (MD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.09; P=0.75), 12mo (MD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.07; P=0.40). Likewise, there were no statistical differences in the CMT after treatment between the SDM and mETDRS in 3mo (MD, -9.92; 95% CI, -28.69 to 8.85; P=0.30), 6mo (MD, -11.37; 95% CI, -29.65 to 6.91; P=0.22), 12mo (MD, 8.44; 95% CI, -29.89 to 46.77; P=0.67). Three RCTs suggested that SDM laser results in good preservation of contrast sensitivity as mETDRS, in two different follow-up evaluations: 3mo (MD, 0.05; 95% CI, 0 to 0.09; P=0.04) and 6mo (MD, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.14; P=0.78). Two RCTs showed that the SDM laser treatment did less retinal damage than that mETDRS did (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.13; P<0.01).
conclusionSDM laser photocoagulation shows an equally good effect on visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and reduction of DME as compared to conventional mETDRS protocol with less retinal damage.
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.