SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2020
Efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist for central serous chorioretinopathy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The choroidal nervous system: a link between mineralocorticoid receptor and pachychoroid.Acta neuropathologica · 2023Article
- Real-world practice patterns of eplerenone use for central serous chorioretinopathy.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Article
- Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analyses.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2022Article
- Dynamic changes and correlation analysis of outer retinal microstructure in macular area of central serous chorioretinopathy patients during restoration period.International ophthalmology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) for patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR).
methodsThe Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched up to February 2020, to identify the studies comparing the efficacy of MRA with placebo/observation or photodynamic therapy (PDT) for CSCR. The primary outcomes were maximal subretinal fluid height and central macular thickness (CMT). The secondary outcomes included subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Data of interest were extracted and analyzed by R version 3.6.0. The weighted mean difference and their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the strength of the association.
resultsTen studies including 284 affected eyes were involved, with 168 undergoing MRA treatment, 60 taking placebo/observation, and 56 receiving PDT. The pooling results showed that MRA was significantly more effective in resolving maximal subretinal fluid height (P < 0.01) and diminishing CMT (P < 0.01) than placebo/observation, while PDT could achieve significantly better CMT reduction than MRA (P = 0.03). For BCVA improvement and SFCT reduction, no statistical difference was detected among the groups of MRA, observation, placebo, or PDT (P > 0.05).
conclusionMRA is an effective therapy for the management of CSCR, which is only slightly inferior to PDT in terms of CMT reduction. For patients who could not afford PDT, MRA could function as an alternative treatment with acceptable efficacy and safety.
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.