Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29995929›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Biomarkers and predictors for functional and anatomic outcomes for small gauge pars plana vitrectomy and peeling of the internal limiting membrane in naïve diabetic macular edema: The VITAL Study.

Matias Iglicki, Alejandro Lavaque, Malgorzata Ozimek, Hermino Pablo Negri, Mali Okada, Jay Chhablani, Catharina Busch, Anat Loewenstein, Dinah Zur

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Role of Müller Cells in Diabetic Macular Edema.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023
    Review
  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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Matias IglickiPrivate Retina Service, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-2257-9108
Alejandro LavaqueNITIDO: Nuevo Instituto Tucumano de Investigación y Desarrollo en Oftalmología, Tucuman, Argentina.
Malgorzata OzimekDepartment of General Ophthalmology and Pediatric Ophthalmology Service, Medical University in Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Hermino Pablo NegriDiagnostic Ophthalmological Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mali OkadaRoyal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jay ChhablaniSmt.Kanuri Santhamma Retina Vitreous Centre, L.V.Prasad Eye Institute Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, Hyderabad, India.
Catharina BuschDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Anat LoewensteinDivision of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Dinah ZurDivision of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tel Aviv University · ILLeipzig University · DEL V Prasad Eye Institute · INMedical University of Lublin · PLThe Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital · AUUniversidad de Buenos Aires · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to investigate biomarkers and predictive factors for visual and anatomical outcome in patients with naïve diabetic macular edema (DME) who underwent small gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling as a first line treatment.

designMulticenter, retrospective, interventional study.

participants120 eyes from 120 patients with naïve DME treated with PPV and ILM peeling with a follow up of 24 months.

methodsChange in baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfoveal thickness (CST) 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. Predictive value of baseline BCVA, CST, optical coherence tomography (OCT) features (presence of subretinal fluid (SRF) and photoreceptor damage), and time between DME diagnosis and surgery. Additional treatment for DME needed. Intra- and post-operative complications (cataract rate formation, increased intraocular pressure).

main outcome measuresThe correlation between baseline characteristics and BCVA response (mean change from baseline; categorized improvement ≥5 or ≥10; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters) 12 and 24 months after surgery.

resultsMean BCVA was 0.66 ± 0.14 logMAR, 0.52 ± 0.21 logMAR, and 0.53 ± 0.21 logMAR (p<0.001) at baseline, 12 and 24 months, respectively. Shorter time from DME diagnosis until PPV (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.97-0.99, p<0.001) was a predictor for good functional treatment response (area under the curve 0.828). For every day PPV is postponed, the patient's chances to gain ≥5 letters at 24 months decrease by 1.8%. Presence of SRF was identified as an anatomical predictor of a better visual outcome, (OR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.16-34.08, p = 0.033). Safety profile was acceptable.

conclusionsOur results reveal a significant functional and anatomical improvement of DME 24 months after primary PPV, without the need for additional treatment. Early surgical intervention and presence of SRF predict good visual outcome. These biomarkers should be considered when treatment is chosen.

Indexed as

VitrectomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiabetes ComplicationsEyeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMacular EdemaMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizePrognosisRetrospective StudiesTime-to-Treatment

Identifiers

PMID29995929
PMCPMC6040739
OpenAlexW2854059486

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.