Observational studyEye (London, England)2020
Rate of progression of idiopathic full-thickness macular holes before surgery.
Observational study 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 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.
- 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 · 2025Article
- [Macular hole: Differential diagnosis, treatment options and new guideline recommendations].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Macular Structure Characteristics in Unilateral Idiopathic Full-Thickness Macular Hole and the Healthy Fellow Eyes.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2024Article
- Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Presentation and Surgical Outcomes of Idiopathic Macular Holes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Optical coherence tomography features and risk of macular hole formation in the fellow eye.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique: Is It the Best Option for Macular Holes?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the spontaneous change in size over the time of idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (IFTMHs) using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
methodsThis retrospective observational study included 24 eyes of 24 consecutive patients waiting for IFTMH surgery. On OCT horizontal B-scan passing through the center of the fovea, the minimum linear diameter (MLD), the basal diameter (BD), and the presence of vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) were evaluated. The mean total and daily MLD and BD variations were calculated as both absolute and percentage values.
resultsThe MLD and BD size increase was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). The MLD size increase was significantly greater for small (<250 μm) versus both medium (≥250 to ≤400 μm) and large (>400 μm) IFTMHs in all analysis: the total absolute (P = 0.0248), the daily absolute (P = 0.0186), the total percentage (P = 0.0020), and the daily percentage (P = 0.0008) variations. For the BD, the significance between the same groups was achieved only in the daily percentage change (P = 0.0220). The presence of VMA did not influence the amount of MLD and BD increase. The rate of increase was dependent on the size of hole at presentation (MLD: small: 1.67 microns per day; medium: 0.61 microns per day; large: 0.44 microns per day).
conclusionsBoth MLD and BD increase over the time in IFTMHs. There is a significantly greater rate of increase in hole size in smaller holes compared with larger. Therefore, prioritisation for small IFTMH may be justified.
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.