ArticleEye (London, England)2017
Vessel diameter study: intravitreal vs posterior subtenon triamcinolone acetonide injection for diabetic macular edema.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Switching to subtenon triamcinolone acetonide does not jeopardize the functional and anatomic outcomes of dexamethasone implant treated eyes with diabetic macular edema.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Combined therapy with intravitreal aflibercept and subtenon corticosteroids in eyes with severe diabetic papillopathy: two case reports.Journal of medical case reports · 2021Article
- Intravitreal Ranibizumab Versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Combined with Posterior Subtenon Triamcinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema.Beyoglu eye journal · 2021Article
- Comparison of topical nepafenac 0.1% with intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the treatment of Irvine-Gass syndrome.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo detect and compare the vessel diameter effect of intravitreal vs subtenon injection of triamcinolone for diabetic macular edema (DME).MethodsSixty patients with DME who underwent triamcinolone injection either intravitreally (N=30) or under the tenon capsule (N=30) were included. Non-injected fellow eyes served as control. The main outcome measures were central retinal artery equivalent (CRAE), central retinal vein equivalent (CRVE), and artery-vein ratio (AVR).ResultsIn the intravitreal group, pre-injection mean CRAE (147.07 μ) decreased to 141.03 μ at 1 week and to 139.43 μ at 1 month (P<0.001) while baseline CRVE (209.61 μ) decreased initially to 198.85 μ at 1 week then to 198.49 μ at 1 month (P<0.001). In the subtenon group, pre-injection CRAE (152.18 μ) decreased to 149.49 μ at 1 week and to 147.47 μ at 1 month (P=0.017), while baseline CRVE (215.60 μ) decreased initially to 208.69 μ at 1 week then to 207.25 μ at 1 month (P=0.003). Pre-injection AVR values did not change at 1 week and at 1 month in both injection groups (P=0.66 and P=0.196, respectively). In the control group, none of the 3 parameters changed throughout the study period compared to the baseline (P>0.28).ConclusionIn eyes with DME, both intravitreal and subtenon triamcinolone injection led to a significant constriction of retinal arteries and veins.
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.