Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29090356›Full record

SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2018

ILM peeling in nontractional diabetic macular edema: review and metanalysis.

M Rinaldi, R dell'Omo, F Morescalchi, F Semeraro, E Gambicorti, F Cacciatore, F Chiosi, C Costagliola

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Concurrent vitrectomy with phacoemulsification for subclinical diabetic macular edema: a long-term comparative study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema.Current diabetes reports · 2019
    Review
  7. Evaluation of TGF-Beta 2 and VEGFJournal of ophthalmology · 2018
    Article
  8. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

M RinaldiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
R dell'OmoDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy.
F MorescalchiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Specialties and Public Health, Eye Clinic, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
F SemeraroDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Specialties and Public Health, Eye Clinic, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
E GambicortiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Specialties and Public Health, Eye Clinic, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
F CacciatoreDepartment of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
F ChiosiDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy. flaviachiosi@yahoo.it.
C CostagliolaDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy.
University of Brescia · ITUniversity of Molise · ITOspedale Monaldi · ITUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the effect of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during vitrectomy for nontractional diabetic macular edema.

methodsPUBMED, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were reviewed using the following terms (or combination of terms): diabetic macular edema, nontractional diabetic macular edema, internal limiting membrane peeling, vitrectomy, Müller cells. Randomized and nonrandomized studies were included. The eligible studies compared anatomical and functional outcomes of vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling for tractional and nontractional diabetic macular edema. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness were considered, respectively, the primary and secondary outcomes. Meta-analysis on mean differences between vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling was performed using inverse variance method in random effects.

resultsFour studies with 672 patients were eligible for analysis. No significant difference was found between postoperative best-corrected visual acuity or best-corrected visual acuity change of ILM peeling group compared with nonpeeling group. There was no significant difference in postoperative central macular thickness and central macular thickness reduction between the two groups.

conclusionsThe visual acuity outcomes in patients affected by nontractional diabetic macular edema using pars plana vitrectomy with ILM peeling versus no ILM peeling were not significantly different. A larger prospective and randomized study would be necessary.

Indexed as

Basement MembraneDiabetic RetinopathyEpiretinal MembraneHumansMacular EdemaVisual AcuityVitrectomyDiabetic macular edemaDiabetic retinopathyInternal limiting membrane peelingMeta-analysisMüller cellsVitrectomy

Identifiers

PMID29090356
OpenAlexW2766620269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.