SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2020
Surgery outcomes of lamellar macular eyes with or without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Extended follow-up of ultrastructural remodeling and functional recovery after lamellar macular hole surgery using autologous platelet-rich plasma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Changes in visual acuity and retinal microstructures following vitrectomy for lamellar macular hole.PloS one · 2026Article
- The no-retina-touch technique: vitrectomy and platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of lamellar macular hole. New insights into pathogenesis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- In-Depth Analysis of Preoperative OCT Markers as Prognostic Factors for Lamellar Macular Holes and Epiretinal Membrane Foveoschisis.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2024Article
- The clinical and pathogenic significance of atypical epiretinal tissue in macular hole.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Review
- Primary Lamellar Macular Holes: To Vit or Not to Vit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Outcomes from the Retrospective Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study on Lamellar Macular Hole Surgery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Macular Holes: Main Clinical Presentations, Diagnosis, and Therapies.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Visual outcomes and prognostic factors of vitrectomy for lamellar macular holes and epiretinal membrane foveoschisis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Structural and functional outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy in patients with lamellar macular hole.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the two different kinds of epiretinal membranes, this study aimed to compare both the structural and functional outcomes of lamellar macular holes with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) after surgery.
methodPublications up to July 2020 that compared the surgical outcomes of lamellar macular hole with and without LHEP were included. Forest plots were created by using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Fixed or random effects models were used on the basis of I2 heterogeneity estimates. Meanwhile, to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis was carried out.
resultsEight pertinent publications that contained a total of 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included. They were all retrospective studies and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. In all studies, the preoperative best corrected visual acuity showed no significant differences between the two groups, and the visual acuity improved in both groups after surgery. The pooled result for the improved best corrected visual acuity was 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.26; P < 0.01) between the with and without LHEP groups. The restored ellipsoid zone odds ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.26 to 2.44; P = 0.69) for the group with LHEP compared to the group without LHEP.
conclusionPatients without LHEP had better postoperative visual acuity than patients with LHEP. No significant difference in restored ellipsoid zone was found between the two groups.
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.