Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33059077›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology. Retina2021

Patient-Reported Complications after Intravitreal Injection and Their Predictive Factors.

Michael S Ramos, Lucy T Xu, Srinidhi Singuri, Julio C Castillo Tafur, Sruthi Arepalli, Justis P Ehlers, Peter K Kaiser, Rishi P Singh, Aleksandra V Rachitskaya, Sunil K Srivastava and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology. Retina, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05832996 (Randomized Controlled Study of Cooled Versus Room-Temperature Artificial Tears for Reducing Surface Irritation Following Intravitreal Injection), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT05832996 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Study of Cooled Versus Room-Temperature Artificial Tears for Reducing Surface Irritation Following Intravitreal Injection

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of IowaRan2022 to 2022Enrolled124ConditionsDiabetic Retinopathy With Macular Edema of Both Eyes (Diagnosis), Central Retinal Vein Occlusion With Macular Edema, Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Unspecified Eye, Cystoid Macular EdemaArmsRefresh Plus Preservative-free Lubricant Eye Drops
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Magnetically Controllable and Degradable Milliscale Swimmers as Intraocular Drug Implants.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Intravitreal therapy-success stories and challenges.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael S RamosCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Lucy T XuEmory Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Srinidhi SinguriCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Julio C Castillo TafurCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Sruthi ArepalliCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Justis P EhlersCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Peter K KaiserCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Rishi P SinghCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Aleksandra V RachitskayaCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Sunil K SrivastavaCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Jonathan E SearsCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Andrew P SchachatCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Amy S BabiuchCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Sumit SharmaCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Daniel F MartinCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Careen Y LowderCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Arun D SinghCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Alex YuanCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: yuana@ccf.org.
Amy S NowackiDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Cleveland Clinic · USEmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe intravitreal injection (IVI) of pharmacologic agents is the most commonly performed ocular procedure and is associated with a host of complications. Most IVI-related complications data are derived from randomized controlled clinical trials, which report a high adverse event rate. The nature of these protocol-driven trials limit their applicability to the diverse circumstances seen in routine clinical practice. The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of patient-reported IVI-related complications, their risk factors, and the manner in which patients sought treatment at a tertiary eye care center.

designRetrospective, institutional review board-approved study.

participantsForty-four thousand seven hundred thirty-four injections in 5318 unique patients at the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute from 2012 through 2016.

methodsIntravitreal injection.

main outcome measuresComplication occurrence within 15 days of injection.

resultsFrom 2012 through 2016, a total of 44734 injections were performed in 5318 unique patients. Overall, complication rates were low, representing 1.9% of all injections, with 1031 unique complications in 685 patients (12.9%). The most common minor complications, or those not requiring intervention, were irritation (n = 312) and subconjunctival hemorrhage (n = 284). The most common serious complications, or those requiring intervention, were corneal abrasion (n = 46) and iritis (n = 31). Most complications (66%) were managed adequately by a telephone or Epic (Epic Systems Corp., Verona, WI) electronic message encounter only. Importantly, no injection protocol parameter, such as type of anesthesia, preparation, or post-injection medication, increased the risk of a complication. However, a patient's gender, age, number of previous injections, and provider strongly influenced the risk of patient-reported complications.

conclusionsOverall, complication rates seen in routine clinical practice were low compared with clinical trial reporting. Providers should feel confident in the safety and administration of IVI during times when follow-up office visits and resources may be limited. When performing an IVI, factors such as a patient's gender, age, number of previous injections, and provider must be taken into account to ensure the best possible outcomes.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresVisual AcuityAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMaleRetinal DiseasesRetrospective StudiesAngiogenesis InhibitorsComplicationsIntravitreal injectionPredictive factorsRetrospective

Identifiers

PMID33059077
PMCPMC7548755
OpenAlexW3092743899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.