ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
The effects of epiretinal membranes on the treatment outcomes of intravitreal aflibercept injection in diabetic macular edema: a real-life study.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of the epiretinal membrane on the outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implantation for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effects of epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation on the anatomic and functional results of subjects with diabetic macular edema (DME) who are receiving intravitreal aflibercept injections (IAIs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective comparative study includes 29 eyes with DME (Group 1) and 43 eyes with DME and ERM (Group 2). After three consecutive monthly 2.0 mg IAIs, subjects received monthly follow-ups and retreatment was performed if needed. Corrected visual acuity (CVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and central macular volume (CMV) parameters were recorded tri-monthly, and the 36-month follow-up was designated the primary endpoint of the study.
resultsThere was no significant difference between groups when comparing the mean ages and male-to-female ratios (p > 0.05, for both). At the baseline, the mean CVA value was significantly worse (p = 0.002), and the mean CMT was significantly lower (p = 0.016) in Group 1, while there was no significant difference in terms of the mean CMV (p = 0.625). The mean number of IAIs was similar at the first (p < 0.102), second (p = 0.363), and third year (p = 0.850) follow-ups. The mean CVA was significantly worse, and CMT was significantly lower in Group 1 at most of the visits in the first half of the follow-up period (p < 0.05, for all), while there was no significant difference in the second half of the follow-up period. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of CMV at any visit (p > 0.05, for all).
conclusionDespite a similar number of IAIs needed, worse baseline clinical parameters are associated with poorer early- or mid-term outcomes. At the long-term follow-up, CVA and CMT became similar in DME independent of ERM.
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.