ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Short-Term Results of Ocriplasmin Versus Prompt Vitrectomy for Macular Hole. Which Performs Better?
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this retrospective study, we compared the anatomical and functional changes in patients with vitreomacular traction associated with macular holes between the following groups: (1) Patients who were treated with a single intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin (the OCRIALONE group); (2) those who failed the ocriplasmin treatment and underwent vitrectomy one month later (the OCRIVIT group); and (3) patients who directly underwent par plana vitrectomy (VITREALONE group). A total of 38 patients, 19 in the OCRIALONE group + OCRIVIT group (seven and 12 patients, respectively) and 19 in the VITREALONE group with focal vitreomacular adhesion associated with macular holes were evaluated with spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Functional examinations included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and microperimetry analysis. Visual function changes were compared between the OCRIALONE group + OCRIVIT group and VITREALONE group up to three months. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis compared the OCRIVIT group and the VITREALONE group. BCVA values and the mean retinal sensitivity showed statistically significant improvement in all groups (
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.