Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29850211›Full record

ReviewJournal of ophthalmology2018

A Review of Surgical Outcomes and Advances for Macular Holes.

Peng-Peng Zhao, Shuang Wang, Nan Liu, Zhi-Min Shu, Jin-Song Zhao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Predicting Visual Recovery in Long-Standing Macular Holes: Surgical Strategies and Role of Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Peng-Peng ZhaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8451-441X
Shuang WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
Nan LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Zhi-Min ShuDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Jin-Song ZhaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9077-8446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The surgical outcomes of macular holes (MHs) have improved greatly in recent years. The closure rate is as high as 90-100%, but the outcomes of some special types of MHs remain unsatisfactory. Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling dramatically improves the anatomic success rate, but recent studies have found that it could also cause mechanical and subclinical traumatic changes to the retina. Dyes are widely used, and apart from indocyanine green (ICG), the toxicities of other dyes require further research. Face-down posturing is necessary for MHs larger than 400

Identifiers

PMID29850211
PMCPMC5932482

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.