ArticleTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Vitrectomy for the removal of idiopathic epiretinal membrane with or without internal limiting membrane peeling: a meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Idiopathic epiretinal membrane: progression and timing of surgery.Eye (London, England) · 2022Review
- Influence of Preoperative Foveal Layers' Thickness on Visual Function and Macular Morphology by Phacovitrectomy for Epiretinal Membrane.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- [Statement of the Professional Association of German Ophthalmologists (BVA), the German Ophthalmological Society (DOG) and the Retinological Society (RG) on the development, diagnostics and treatment of epiretinal gliosis : Status October 2020].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to analyze the effect of internal limiting membrane peeling in removal of idiopathic epiretinal membranes through meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched PubMed for studies published until 30 April 2018. Inclusion criteria included cases of idiopathic epiretinal membranes, treated with vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Exclusion criteria consisted of coexisting retinal pathologies and use of indocyanine green to stain the internal limiting membrane. Sixteen studies were included in our meta-analysis. We compared the results of surgical removal of epiretinal membrane, with or without internal limiting membrane peeling, in terms of best-corrected visual acuity and anatomical restoration of the macula (central foveal thickness). Studies or subgroups of patients who had indocyanine green used as an internal limiting membrane stain were excluded from the study, due to evidence of its toxicity to the retina.
resultsRegarding best-corrected visual acuity levels, the overall mean difference was -0.29 (95% confidence interval: -0.319 to -0.261), while for patients with internal limiting membrane peeling was -0.289 (95% confidence interval: -0.334 to -0.244) and for patients without internal limiting membrane peeling was -0.282 (95% confidence interval: -0.34 to -0.225). Regarding central foveal thickness levels, the overall mean difference was -117.22 (95% confidence interval: -136.70 to -97.74), while for patients with internal limiting membrane peeling was -121.08 (95% confidence interval: -151.12 to -91.03) and for patients without internal limiting membrane peeling was -105.34 (95% confidence interval: -119.47 to -96.21).
conclusionVitrectomy for the removal of epiretinal membrane combined with internal limiting membrane peeling is an effective method for the treatment of patients with idiopathic epiretinal membrane.
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.