ArticleEye (London, England)2020
Real-world management and long-term outcomes of diabetic macular oedema with good visual acuity.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Burden of Delayed Diabetic Retinopathy Management and Use of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Screening Tools: A Systematic Literature Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Real-World Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Therapy in Diabetic Macular Oedema: Barriers to Treatment Success and Implications for Low/Lower-Middle-Income Countries.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the management and long-term outcomes of patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and good initial visual acuity in real-world settings.
methodsWe reviewed 122 eyes of 100 patients with treatment-naive DMO and initial best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/25 or better. We assessed clinical characteristics, logMAR BCVA, central subfield thickness (CST), cumulative intravitreal injections and laser treatments at yearly intervals, and characteristics at time of initial treatment. Linear mixed effects models were used to identify predictors of visual outcomes.
resultsAt presentation, mean BCVA was 0.057 ± 0.048 logMAR (Snellen 20/23) and mean CST was 288 ± 57 μm. After a median follow-up of 3 years, 51% of eyes underwent treatment. More eyes underwent intravitreal injection as initial treatment (54%), but lasers were initiated at an earlier time and at better BCVA. Final BCVA was associated with better BCVA (P < 0.001) and earlier timing (P = 0.017) at initial treatment, but not CST at first treatment (P = 0.634) or cumulative number of injections or lasers (P = 0.441-0.606).
conclusionDMO with good initial visual acuity should be monitored closely, as delay in treatment initiation is associated with worse visual outcomes. BCVA at time of initial treatment is the strongest determinant of final visual acuity.
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.