Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2021
Intraoperative efficacy and clinical outcomes of two commercial staining solutions used in idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chromovitrectomy: current evidence, emerging technologies, and practical applications in vitreoretinal surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
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
purposeTo compare two commercially available staining solutions (MembraneBlue Dual® by D.O.R.C., Netherlands, and TWIN by AL.CHI.MI.A. S.R.L., Italy), in terms of intraoperative handling, staining efficacy and safety, in eyes undergoing surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM).
methodsIn this observational cross-sectional study, the performance of the dyes used during the procedure (cohesion, ERM and internal limiting membrane [ILM] staining efficacy) was scored by the surgeon using a customized questionnaire after 10 procedures with each of the two dyes. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), blue-light fundus autofluorescence (BAF), and microperimetry-determined retinal sensitivity were reviewed preoperatively and then at 1 and 3 months after surgery.
resultsILM staining efficacy with TWIN was scored 2.89 ± 0.33 by the surgeons, which turned out to be higher than with MembraneBlue Dual® (1.90 ± 0.31, P = 0.0002). The cohesion score was 2.70 ± 0.48 for TWIN and resulted significantly higher than with MembraneBlue Dual® (1.60 ± 0.51, P = 0.0010). BCVA, CFT and retinal sensitivity were similar in the two groups, 1 and 3 months postoperatively (P nonsignificant for all).
conclusionsBoth TWIN and MembraneBlue Dual® dyes showed suitable staining properties and equivalent safety and efficacy profiles, both intra- and postoperatively. The TWIN dye might offer a solution for surgeons who prefer a more cohesive and stable dye.
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.