SynthesisEye (London, England)2021
Efficacy and safety of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment for central serous chorioretinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selective and nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Oral eplerenone in first-episode acute central serous chorioretinopathy: results of a double-masked randomized trial.International ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Subthreshold Micropulse Laser Versus Oral Spironolactone in Chronic Central Serous Chorioretinopathy: A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Trial
- Treatment of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy With Topical Difluprednate: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Therapeutic interventions for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: a comprehensive assessment of systematic reviews.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Review
- Influence of combined eplerenone, aflibercept and nepafenac therapy on central serous chorioretinopathy.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Ocular steroidome in human eyes and in eyes with complex central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR).Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analyses.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2022Article
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
objectivesWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) treatment for central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant clinical studies published prior to March 2020. The primary outcome was change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and the secondary outcomes included the subretinal fluid (SRF), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), and central macular thickness (CMT).
resultsFive randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four cohort studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 352 eyes. The MRA treatment was not superior to placebo in BCVA at 1 month (WMD = -0.06, 95% CI -0.15-0.02, P = 0.15, I
conclusionsOur meta-analysis shows that the MRA treatment can improve anatomical structure in CSC patients, but it is not effective for achieving BCVA gain. The applicant of the MRA is safe and have no severe effect.
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.