ArticleActa ophthalmologica2022
Initial observation or treatment for diabetic macular oedema with good visual acuity: two-year outcomes comparison in routine clinical practice: data from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and optical coherence tomography predictors of spontaneous resolution of diabetic macular edema: incremental value of the subfoveal large choroidal vessel layer thickness ratio.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Aflibercept or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual acuity (VA) change at 24 months in eyes with clinically significant DME (CSDME) and good VA initially treated versus initially observed in routine clinical practice.
methodsRetrospective analysis of treatment-naïve eyes with CSDME and good VA (baseline VA ≥ 79 letters), with at least 24 months of follow-up and initially managed with treatment (intravitreal treatment and/or macular laser) or observation with possible treatment after 4 months that were tracked in a prospectively designed observational registry.
resultsWe identified 150 eligible eyes (98 initially observed, 52 initially treated) of 130 patients. The proportion of eyes with at least a 5-letter VA loss at 24 months was not significantly different between the groups: 65% with initial observation and 42% with initial treatment (p = 0.39). However, initially observed eyes were more likely to have a 10-letter VA loss at 24 months (OR = 4.6, p = 0.022). Most of eyes in the initial observation group received at least one treatment (an intravitreal injection in 66% and macular laser in 20%) during the 24-month period.
conclusionsThe risk of 5 letters loss was similar between both management groups. However, initially observed eyes were more at risk of developing moderate visual loss and more than 80% of them required treatment over 24 months.
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.