ArticleScientific reports2020
Vitreomacular traction quantitative cutoffs for the assessment of resolution after ocriplasmin intravitreal treatment.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Review
- Predicting the individual probability of macular hole closure following intravitreal ocriplasmin injections for vitreomacular traction release using baseline characteristics.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters associated with vitreomacular traction (VMT) resolution after ocriplasmin intravitreal injection and also associated with the development of vitreomacular complications. Study designed was a retrospective case series. Structural OCT images were acquired at baseline and over the follow-up after treatment. We developed a mathematical model to provide quantitative parameters associated with VMT resolution. Moreover, we adopted the same model to assess the quantitative parameters associated with development of further vitreomacular complications or with the worsening of the coexisting condition. Main outcome measures were BCVA, central macular thickness (CMT), VMT reflectivity, VMT size, VMT resolution, epiretinal membrane (ERM), macular holes. 73 eyes of 73 VMT patients (mean age 73 ± 9 years) were recruited. The mean follow-up duration was 2.6 ± 1.1 years. Mean baseline BCVA was 0.38 ± 0.18 LogMAR, improving to 0.26 ± 0.20 at the end of the follow-up (p < 0.01). Baseline CMT was 431 ± 118 µm, improving to 393 ± 122 µm at the end of the follow-up (p < 0.01). 38/73 eyes (52%) showed only VMT, whereas 35/73 eyes (48%) also showed coexisting alterations at baseline. VMT resolved in 40/73 eyes (55% of cases). Our model disclosed VMT reflectivity as the most involved parameter in VMT resolution. VMT size showed less influence on the success of ocriplasmin treatment. ERM was negatively associated with VMT resolution. Moreover, VMT reflectivity values and ERM represented the most important parameters for the onset of vitreomacular complications.
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.