Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28133919›Full record

Trial reportActa ophthalmologica2017

Visual function response to ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole.

Timothy L Jackson, Thomas Verstraeten, Luc Duchateau, Benedicte Lescrauwaet

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta ophthalmologica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis versus pars plana vitrectomy for vitreous floaters.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Timothy L JacksonSchool of Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7618-1555
Thomas VerstraetenP95 Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology Services, Leuven, Belgium.
Luc DuchateauGhent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Benedicte LescrauwaetXintera Ltd, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7976-0330
Ghent University Hospital · BEInca Digital Printers (United Kingdom) · GBKing's College London · GBKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the effect of an intravitreal ocriplasmin injection on visual function, measured using visual acuity (VA) and vision-related quality of life.

methodsPost hoc analysis of prespecified secondary end-points in two multicentre, randomized, double-masked, phase 3 clinical trials. A total of 652 participants with symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion were enrolled, of whom 464 received a single intravitreal injection of 125 μg ocriplasmin and 188 received a single intravitreal placebo injection. Based on principal components analysis results, visual function response (VFR) was defined as either a VA improvement of ≥2 lines; or an improvement in the composite score of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), estimated using the standard error of measurement approach; or an improvement in the VFQ-25 driving subscale score exceeding the MCID. The main outcome measure was VFR at 6 months.

resultsA VFR occurred in 55.1% of the ocriplasmin group versus 34.2% of the placebo injection group (p < 0.0001). This comprised 23.7% versus 11.2% (p = 0.0003) with a ≥ 2-line VA improvement, 35.9% versus 22.7% (p = 0.0016) for the VFQ-25 composite score, and 10.2% versus 6.2% (p = 0.1697) for the driving subscale.

conclusionOcriplasmin produces a clinically meaningful visual function benefit.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeVisual AcuityDouble-Blind MethodFibrinolysinFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacula LuteaPeptide FragmentsRetinal PerforationsSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTissue AdhesionsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeVitreous BodyFibrinolysinmicroplasminPeptide Fragmentsmacular holeminimal clinically important differenceocriplasminprincipal components analysissymptomatic vitreomacular adhesion/vitreomacular tractionVFQ-25

Identifiers

PMID28133919
PMCPMC5901404
OpenAlexW2582561850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.