ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
A Comparison of Conventional Intravitreal Injection Method vs InVitria Intravitreal Injection Method.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capacity building in screening and treatment of diabetic retinopathy in Asia-Pacific region.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Novel Needle for Intravitreal Drug Delivery: Comparative Study of Needle Tip Aspirates, Injection Stream and Penetration Forces.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare use of the conventional intravitreal injection method to the InVitria intravitreal injection device. Three outcome measures were studied: patient comfort, speed of injection and cost-effectiveness. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective review of 58 patients was undertaken. Patients scored their perceived pain for each part of the conventional injection method using visual analogue scales (VAS), which allows pain to be scored from 0 (no pain) to 100. The same 58 patients scored their perceived pain for each part of the injection process with the InVitria on their follow-up visit. The procedure was timed in both settings and cost to the Trust was analysed.
resultsPain scores when the InVitria was used were lower than when the conventional method was used for all aspects of the intravitreal injection procedure, in particular, when comparing insertion of drape/speculum (mean score 57.56) to insertion the InVitria (mean score 16.50), needle entry (mean score 37.76 to 27.86) and removal of the drape/speculum (mean score 38.72) to removal of the InVitria (11.07). The reduction in pain scores was statistically significant for all aspects of the procedure, except the initial instillation of drops. The InVitria was an average of 1 minute and 32 seconds faster than the conventional method. Use of the InVitria in place of the conventional method provides an annual saving of £24,300 to the Trust based on the number of injections currently performed.
conclusionThe introduction of the InVitria in the Newcastle Eye Centre has had a positive impact on patient comfort, time and cost to the Trust.
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.