Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32161439›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Anesthesia for Intravitreal Injection: A Systematic Review.

Jonathan Han, Nicholas T Rinella, Daniel L Chao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cooling Anesthesia for Intravitreal Injections - A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023
    Review
  16. Preventive factors, diagnosis, and management of injection-related endophthalmitis: a literature review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Jonathan HanShiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Nicholas T RinellaShiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Daniel L ChaoShiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Career Development K12 ProgramK12EY024225 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI WEINREB, ROBERT N · 2015 to 2025
$4.3M
NEI NIH HHS K12 EY024225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe intravitreal injection has become one of the most commonly performed procedures in ophthalmology; however, there is no standardized approach to anesthesia during the procedure. The goal of this systematic review is to review approaches to anesthesia for intravitreal injection and look at comparative efficacy between these different anesthetics.

methodsA systematic review of literature was performed in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases using the key words "anesthesia", "pain management", and "intravitreal injection". Of the initial 239 search matches, 30 articles were found to be relevant to the topic. 18 studies were excluded as they did not include primary data or did not include the visual analog scale as a primary outcome. The remaining 12 articles were assessed to look at the comparative efficacy of anesthesia and adverse events.

resultsThe anesthesia techniques reported include topical methods such as anesthetic eyedrops, anesthetic gels, and anesthetic-soaked pledgets as well as subconjunctival injection of anesthetic. Ultimately, no single anesthetic or delivery mechanism was shown to be superior to the others in a statistically significant way and adverse events were largely insignificant. Limitations of these studies include relatively small sizes of the studies, as well as the lack of masking which may introduce bias.

conclusionIn the current literature, no type of anesthetic method was found to be superior to another for intravitreal injection. Future studies in this area may lead to new insights into the efficacy of different forms of intravitreal anesthesia.

Indexed as

anesthesiaintravitreal injectionmanagementpainreview

Identifiers

PMID32161439
PMCPMC7049779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.