Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32379288›Full record

Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2020

Facedown Positioning Following Surgery for Large Full-Thickness Macular Hole: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Saruban Pasu, Lauren Bell, Zohra Zenasni, Doris Lanz, Irene A Simmonds, Ann Thompson, David Yorston, D Alistair H Laidlaw, Catey Bunce, Richard Hooper and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Face-down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Macular Hole Surgery as a Historical Perspective.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Update on surgical management of complex macular holes: a review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. [Biomarkers in full-thickness and lamellar defects of the macula].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Saruban PasuNational Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Moorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, England.
Lauren BellPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Zohra ZenasniPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Doris LanzPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Irene A SimmondsPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Ann ThompsonPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
David YorstonGartnavel Royal Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland.
D Alistair H LaidlawSt Thomas' Hospital, London, England.
Catey BunceNational Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Moorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, England.
Richard HooperPragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
James W B BainbridgeNational Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Moorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, England.
Positioning In Macular Hole Surgery (PIMS) Study Group
Queen Mary University of London · GBNational Health Service · GBGartnavel General Hospital · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0213-30085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The value of facedown positioning following surgery for large full-thickness macular holes is unknown. Objective: To determine whether advice to position facedown postoperatively improves the outcome for large macular holes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, parallel group superiority trial with 1:1 randomization stratified by site with 3 months' follow-up was conducted at 9 sites across the United Kingdom and included participants with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole of at least 400 μm minimum linear diameter and a duration of fewer than 12 months. All participants had vitrectomy surgery with peeling of the internal limiting membrane and injection of perfluoropropane (14%) gas, with or without simultaneous surgery for cataract. Interventions: Following surgery, participants were randomly advised to position either facedown or face forward for 8 hours daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was closure of the macular hole determined 3 months following surgery by masked optical coherence tomography evaluation. Secondary outcome measures at 3 months were visual acuity, participant-reported experience of positioning, and quality of life measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25. Results: A total of 185 participants (45 men [24.3%]; 156 white [84.3%]; 9 black [4.9%]; 10 Asian [5.4%]; median age, 69 years [interquartile range, 64-73 years]) were randomized. Macular hole closure was observed in 90 (85.6%) who were advised to position face forward and 88 (95.5%) advised to position facedown (adjusted odds ratio, 3.15; 95% CI, 0.87-11.41; P = .08). The mean (SD) improvement in best-corrected visual acuity at 3 months was 0.34 (0.69) logMAR (equivalent to 1 Snellen line) in the face-forward group and 0.57 (0.42) logMAR (equivalent to 3 Snellen lines) in the facedown group (adjusted mean difference, 0.22 [95 % CI, 0.05-0.38]; equivalent to 2 Snellen lines); 95% CI, 0.05-0.38; P = .01). The median National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 score was 89 (interquartile range, 76-94) in the facedown group and 87 (interquartile range, 73-93) in the face-forward group (mean [SD] change on a logistic scale, 0.08 [0.26] face forward and 0.11 [0.25] facedown; adjusted mean [SD] difference on a logistic scale, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.07; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance: The results do not prove that facedown positioning following surgery is more likely to close large macular holes compared with facing forward but do support the possibility that visual acuity outcomes may be superior. Trial Registration: Isrctn.org Identifier: 12410596.

Indexed as

Prone PositionQuality of LifeVisual AcuityAgedFemaleHumansMacula LuteaMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative CareRetinal PerforationsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeVitrectomy

Identifiers

PMID32379288
PMCPMC7206530
OpenAlexW3022607684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.