ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2020
Efficacy of Topical Nepafenac 0.3% in the Management of Postoperative Cystoid Macular Edema.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of topical nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3% for the treatment of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema following cataract surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Irvine-Gass Syndrome Personalized Treatment Outcomes: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- A Case of Corneal Melting Associated with Topical Diclofenac After Phacovitrectomy for Macular Pucker in a Patient with Rheumatoid Arthritis.International medical case reports journal · 2025Article
- Navigated yellow subthreshold micropulse laser for refractory cystoid macular edema following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2024Article
- Current Management Options in Irvine-Gass Syndrome: A Systemized Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the effect of twice-daily nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.3% on postoperative cystoid-macular-edema (CME). PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this prospective, clinic-based, non-randomized case-series, 21 patients (21 eyes) were enrolled with either acute or chronic postoperative CME after cataract extraction. Patients were treated with twice-daily nepafenac 0.3% drops, and followed for at least a 4-month period. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT)-derived central retinal thickness (CRT) were measured.
resultsFrom 21 patients, eight presented with acute postoperative CME and 13 with chronic CME. Mean follow-up was 4.82±1.24 months. No adverse events were reported during the study. Baseline BCVA was 0.49±0.36 logMAR and improved to 0.36±0.42 logMAR at the last follow-up visit (
conclusionOur outcomes strongly suggest that administrating nepafenac 0.3% drops on a twice-daily regimen could be a promising alternative for the management of postoperative CME. Additional studies are necessary to further validate our results.
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.