ArticleBMC ophthalmology2018
Adherence to face-down and non-supine positioning after macular hole surgery.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gas-Lesion Contact and Postural Compliance After Vitrectomy With Tamponade: A Continuous Monitoring and 3D Quantitative Analysis.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Gas versus GaslEss surgery for full thickness Macular hole (GEM): study protocol for a randomised, assessor-masked, surgical feasibility study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Position Adherence in Patients Underwent Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Silicone Oil Tamponade.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Quantifying Head Position Following Vitrectomy Using a 3-Dimensional Position Sensor Embedded in a Novel Ophthalmic Shield: A Pilot Study.Retinal cases & brief reports · 2023Article
- Macular hole repair: the effect of size and nonsupine posture on postoperative outcomes.Digital journal of ophthalmology : DJO · 2023Article
- Primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: evaluation of a minimally restricted face-down positioning after pars plana vitrectomy and gas tamponade.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate patient adherence to face-down positioning (FDP) and non-supine positioning (NSP) following vitrectomy with gas tamponade for treating macular holes (MHs).
methodsNursing records of 92 patients who underwent vitrectomy with gas tamponade for small-diameter (diameter < 400 μm) MHs during April 2016-June 2017 were examined. Forty-seven and 45 patients were instructed to maintain FDP and NSP (FDP and NSP groups), respectively. Patient adherence was evaluated seven times a day for 3 days, and the adherence rate was calculated.
resultsThe mean adherence rate was significantly higher in the NSP group (99.3% ± 2.7%) than in the FDP group (93.7% ± 13.3%; P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Forty-one patients (91.1%) in the NSP group had an adherence rate of 100%, which was significantly higher than that in the 24 patients in the FDP group (51.1%; P < 0.001, chi-squared test). No statistically significant difference was observed between the patients in the two groups regarding sex, age, MH diameter, and pre- and postoperative visual acuities. MH closure was achieved in all patients.
conclusionsAlmost half of the patients in the FDP group did not obtain 100% adherence rate, suggesting that patient adherence was largely compromised. Patient adherence was better in the NSP group as patient compliance to NSP was better, however, 8.9% of patients were found in face-up positioning at least once. Incompleteness of patient adherence was common, although to differing degrees.
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.