ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2019
Efficacy and safety of intravitreal drug injections using a short 34-gauge needle.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled single-blinded study comparing a 30-gauge needle to a 34-gauge needle for intravitreal injections.International ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Novel Needle for Intravitreal Drug Delivery: Comparative Study of Needle Tip Aspirates, Injection Stream and Penetration Forces.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal drug injections using a short 34-gauge needle. STUDY
designRetrospective study.
methodsThis study included patients with age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, or macular edema associated with retinal vein occlusion. We reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients with one of those three diseases treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents using an 8-mm-long 34-gauge needle. Sustained intraocular pressure (IOP) elevations were defined as IOP exceeding 21 mmHg or 6-mmHg or higher increases from baseline on 2 consecutive visits at least 1 month apart. The main outcome measures were improved best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), IOP changes, and incidence of complications related to the 34-gauge needle.
resultsSix hundred ninety-eight injections were administered to 243 consecutive patients (mean age, 74.0 years) and reviewed. The mean follow-up time was 30.2 ± 15.9 weeks. The mean number of intravitreal injections/eye was 2.7 ± 1.8 (range, 1-9). The mean BCVA improved significantly (P < .0001), from 0.43 ± 0.4 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units at baseline to 0.36 ± 0.41 logMAR units at the last visit. The mean CRT decreased significantly (P < .0001), from 426.9 ± 168.5 microns at baseline to 297.6 ± 121.1 microns at the last visit. The mean IOP decreased significantly (P < .0001), from 13.6 ± 3.0 mmHg at baseline to 12.9 ± 3.1 mmHg at the visit after the first injection. A retinal tear occurred in 0.14%/injection (1/698). A sustained IOP elevation occurred in 1.29%/injection (9/698).
conclusionDespite a few complications, the short 34-gauge needle was efficacious and safe for anti-VEGF intravitreal injections.
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.