Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33009974›Full record

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

Comparison of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis.

Ismael Chehaibou, Niranjan Manoharan, Andrea Govetto, Anibal Andrés Francone, David Sarraf, Jean-Pierre Hubschman

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Ismael ChehaibouRetina Division, Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Niranjan ManoharanRetina Division, Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Andrea GovettoOphthalmology Department, Fatebenefratelli-Oftalmico Hospital, ASST-Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Anibal Andrés FranconeCentro Oftalmológico Charles, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
David SarrafRetina Division, Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jean-Pierre HubschmanRetina Division, Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA. hubschman@jsei.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8631-3467
University of California, Los Angeles · USASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare the rate and characteristics of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes (LMH) versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERMF).

methodsIncluded patients in this retrospective study were divided into two groups based on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) features of their primary eye: LMH (group A) and ERMF (group B).

resultsNinety-four patients were enrolled: 59 (62.8%) in group A and 35 (37.2%) in group B. Fellow eyes in group A had a higher rate of retinal detachment (8/59 [13.6%] vs. 0/35 [0%], P = 0.024), and full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) (11/59 [18.6%] vs. 2/35 [5.7%], P = 0.079), compared with fellow eyes in group B. In group A, 4/59 patients (6.8%) showed a bilateral LMH while none from group B had a LMH in their fellow eye (0/35 [0%]), P = 0.293. Additionally, epiretinal proliferation was noted in 30/59 (50.8%) fellow eyes in group A versus 3/35 (8.6%) fellow eyes in group B, P < 0.001. Longitudinal data were available for 80/94 patients. Over a mean follow-up of 37.4 ± 29.9 months, 1/48 (2.1%) fellow eyes from group A developed a FTMH and 2/48 (4.2%) developed a LMH, while no FTMH or LMH occurred in fellow eyes of group B.

conclusionsFellow eyes of LMH showed a high rate of macular and peripheral vitreoretinal disorders. In addition, epiretinal proliferation was detected in a higher number of fellow eyes of LMH versus ERMF. These findings suggest a bilateral process in eyes of patients with LMH.

Indexed as

Epiretinal MembraneRetinal PerforationsRetinoschisisFollow-Up StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual AcuityEpiretinal membrane foveoschisisEpiretinal proliferationLamellar macular holeMüller glial cellsSpectral-domain optical coherence tomography

Identifiers

PMID33009974
OpenAlexW3090691903

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.