ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2020
Outcomes of 4 surgical adjuvants used for internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a systematic review and network Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2022Review
- Intraoperative efficacy and clinical outcomes of two commercial staining solutions used in idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery.International ophthalmology · 2021Observational
- Long-Term Outcomes of Macular Hole Repair with Triamcinolone Acetonide Visualization.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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the outcomes of four adjuvants used for internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in macular hole surgery, including indocyanine green (ICG), brilliant blue G (BBG), triamcinolone (TA) and trypan blue (TB), through systematic review and random-effects Bayesian network Meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane library databases and Web of Science were searched until August 2018 for clinical trials comparing the above four adjuvants. ORs for postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement and primary macular hole closure rates were compared between the different adjuvants.
resultsTwenty-seven eligible articles were included. For postoperative BCVA improvement, results of BBG-assisted peeling were significantly more favorable than those of ICG (WMD 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.01-0.16) and TA ranked highest. No significant differences were found between any other two groups in postoperative BCVA improvement. For postoperative primary macular hole closure rates, BBG ranked highest. However, no significant differences were shown between any two groups.
conclusionTA and BBG are the optimum adjuvants for achieving postoperative BCVA improvement macular hole surgery with adjuvant-assisted ILM peeling. Among all adjuvants, the use of BBG is associated with the highest postoperative macular hole closure rate.
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.