Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32488330›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2020

Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.

Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-Santos, Jorge Costa, Luís Ferreira, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil, Nuno Lourenço Gomes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The double-edged role of internal limiting membrane peeling during primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
  7. Reply to "Letter to the editor relating to Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021. The double-edged role of internal limiting membrane peeling during primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair".Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Keissy SousaRetina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal. keissy.sousa@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8209-6901
Gil Calvão-SantosRetina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal.
Jorge CostaRetina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal.
Luís FerreiraMedical School of Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Luís MendonçaRetina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal.
Rita GentilRetina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal.
Nuno Lourenço GomesRetina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal.
Hospital Braga · PTUniversity of Minho · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).

methodsWe completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral band placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.

resultsPPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral band placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14).

conclusionsAlthough ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling.

Indexed as

Epiretinal MembraneRetinal DetachmentBasement MembraneHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual AcuityVitrectomyEpiretinal membraneInternal limiting membraneMacula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachmentsPars plana vitrectomyPeeling

Identifiers

PMID32488330
OpenAlexW3031170900

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.