Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28610601›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

Positioning In Macular hole Surgery (PIMS): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

Lauren Bell, Richard Hooper, Catey Bunce, Saruban Pasu, James Bainbridge

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren BellPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. l.bell@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5408-8525
Richard HooperPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Catey BunceDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Saruban PasuNIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
James BainbridgeNIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0213-30085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe treatment of idiopathic full-thickness macular holes involves surgery to close the hole. Some surgeons advise patients to adopt a face-down position to increase the likelihood of successful macular hole closure. However, patients often find the face-down positioning arduous. There is a lack of conclusive evidence that face-down positioning improves the outcome. The 'Positioning In Macular hole Surgery' (PIMS) trial will assess whether advice to position face-down after surgery improves the surgical success rate for the closure of large (≥400 μm) macular holes. METHODS/

designThe PIMS trial is a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomisation. Patients (n = 192) with macular holes (≥400 μm) will be randomised after surgery to either face-down positioning or face-forward positioning for at least 8 h (which can be either consecutive or nonconsecutive) a day, for 5 days following surgery. Inclusion criteria are: presence of an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole ≥400 μm in diameter, as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans, on either or both eyes; patients electing to have surgery for a macular hole, with or without simultaneous phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implant; ability and willingness to position face-down or in an inactive face-forward position; a history of visual loss suggesting a macular hole of 12 months' or less duration. The primary outcome is successful macular hole closure at 3 months post surgery. The treatment effect will be reported as an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval, adjusted for size of macular hole and phakic lens status at baseline. Secondary outcome measures at 3 months are: further surgery for macular holes performed or planned (of those with unsuccessful closure); patient-reported experience of positioning; whether patients report they would still have elected to have the operation given what they know at follow-up; best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured using Snellen charts at a standard distance of 6 m; patient-reported health and quality of life assessed using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25). DISCUSSION: The PIMS trial is the first multicentre randomised control trial to investigate the value of face-down positioning following macular hole standardised surgery.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, ID: ISRCTN12410596. Registered on 11 February 2015. United Kingdom Clinical Research Network, ID: UKCRN17966 . Registered on 26 November 2014.

Indexed as

Prone PositionClinical ProtocolsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalOdds RatioOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresPatient PositioningPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeReoperationResearch DesignRetinal PerforationsRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsIdiopathic macular holesPositioningRecoveryStatistical analysis planSurgery

Identifiers

PMID28610601
PMCPMC5470203
OpenAlexW2626490673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.