Trial reportArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia
Immune modulator therapy compared with vitrectomy for management of complicated intermediate uveitis: a prospective, randomized clinical study.
Trial report in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Vitreoretinal Surgery in Patients with Uveitis: Current Strategies and Emerging Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Management of presumed trematode-induced granulomatous intermediate uveitis.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Update on the Management of Uveitic Macular Edema.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Medicine and surgery for intermediate uveitis.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the benefits and side effects of pars plana vitrectomy with those of systemic immune modulator therapy for patients with complicated intermediate uveitis.
methodsThis prospective clinical trial enrolled patients with recurrent intermediate uveitis who exhibited minimal improvement of visual acuity, despite injections of periocular steroids. Twenty patients were randomized to the pars plana vitrectomy group or oral steroid and cyclosporine-A group (10 eyes of 10 patients per group). Follow-up was performed for 24 months to study changes in visual acuity, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy score, fluorescein angiography, and optical coherence tomography findings.
resultsVisual acuity (logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution) significantly improved from 0.71 to 0.42 (p=0.001) in the surgical group, whereas it improved from 0.68 to 0.43 (p=0.001) in the immune modulator therapy group. Seven patients (70%) in the surgical group gained ≥2 lines, and six patients (60%) in the immune modulator therapy group gained ≥2 lines (p=0.970). Fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography studies showed that six of seven pars plana vitrectomy patients who had cystoid macular edema experienced improvement, whereas two patients with diffuse macular edema did not experience improvement. In the immune modulator therapy group, three of six patients with cystoid macular edema did not experience improvement, whereas two patients with diffuse macular edema experienced improvement.
conclusionsPars plana vitrectomy and immune modulator therapy resulted in significant improvement in visual function in patients with persistent inflammation secondary to chronic intermediate uveitis. Despite this success, there remains a need for the determination of optimal indications for the use of each modality. Immune modulator therapy was successful for the treatment of diffuse macular edema associated with chronic intermediate uveitis, whereas pars plana vitrectomy was not.
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.