Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32231259›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2021

Factors affecting anatomical and visual outcome after macular hole surgery: findings from a large prospective UK cohort.

D H Steel, P H J Donachie, G W Aylward, D A Laidlaw, T H Williamson, D Yorston, BEAVRS Macular hole outcome group

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

D H SteelSunderland Eye Infirmary, Queen Alexandra Rd, Sunderland, SR2 9HP, UK. David.steel@ncl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8734-3089
P H J DonachieGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, GL53 7AN, UK.
G W AylwardMoorfields Eye Hospital, City Rd, London EC1V 2PD, London, UK.
D A LaidlawGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
T H WilliamsonGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
D YorstonGartnavel Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7259-5320
BEAVRS Macular hole outcome group
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBGartnavel General Hospital · GBGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSunderland Eye Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo reassess the definition of a large macular hole, factors predicting hole closure and post-surgery visual recovery.

designDatabase study of 1483 primary macular hole operations. Eligible operations were primary MH operations treated with a vitrectomy and a gas or air tamponade. Excluded were eyes with a history of retinal detachment, high myopia, previous vitrectomy or trauma.

resultsA higher proportion of operations were performed in eyes from females (71.1%) who were 'on average' younger (p < 0.001), with slightly larger holes (p < 0.001) than male patients. Sulfur hexafluoride gas was generally used for smaller holes (p < 0.001). From 1253 operations with a known surgical outcome, successful hole closure was achieved in 1199 (96%) and influenced by smaller holes and complete ILM peeling (p < 0.001), but not post-surgery positioning (p = 0.072). A minimum linear diameter of ~500 μm marked the threshold where the success rate started to decline. From the 1056 successfully closed operations eligible for visual outcome analysis, visual success (defined as visual acuity of 0.30 or better logMAR) was achieved in 488 (46.2%) eyes. At the multivariate level, the factors predicting visual success were better pre-operative VA, smaller hole size, shorter duration of symptoms and the absence of AMD.

conclusionsFemales undergoing primary macular hole surgery tend to be younger and have larger holes than male patients. The definition of a large hole should be changed to around 500 μm, and patients should be operated on early to help achieve a good post-operative VA.

Indexed as

Retinal PerforationsBasement MembraneFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomVisual AcuityVitrectomy

Identifiers

PMID32231259
PMCPMC7852599
OpenAlexW3011733338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.