SynthesisPloS one2021
With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane removal: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Pros and cons of internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery: a randomised clinical trial with microperimetry (PEELING).The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Premacular membranes and glaucoma: a review of clinical and therapeutic considerations.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
- Negative impact of internal limiting membrane peeling in vitreous hemorrhage secondary to retinal vein occlusion with macular ischemia.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Intraoperative OCT-Guided Selective Epiretinal Membrane (ERM) Peeling Versus ERM and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling for Tractional Macular Edema in Diabetic Eyes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- [Epiretinal membrane: diagnostics, indications and surgical treatment].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- A factor for predicting simultaneous internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane removal: swept-source optical coherence tomography-based evaluation of epiretinal membrane adhesion to the retina.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2023Observational
- Article
- Long-Term Visual Acuity and Optical Coherence Tomography Changes After Vitrectomy for Idiopathic Epiretinal Membranes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Idiopathic epiretinal membrane: progression and timing of surgery.Eye (London, England) · 2022Review
- Geographic variations in idiopathic epiretinal membranes in China.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough previously published meta-analyses have compared the surgical effects between the methods of Idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal with or without ILM peeling, they did not reach an agreement. PURPOSE: We aimed to provide more evidence for the treatment of iERM and whether additional ILM peeling was better or not by analyzing more updated studies and randomized control trials (RCTs).
methodThe search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Open Grey without language limitation and the studies included were from inception to December 2019. All studies of iERM with or without ILM peeling showed at least one of outcomes, such as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and recurrence of ERM. The pooled results between above groups were showed by the mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultIn total, 1645 eyes of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and fifteen retrospective studies were included. The short-term (<12 months) BCVA improvement in both groups showed no significant difference (MD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01; P = 0.36). However, the BCVA improvement was significantly better in ILM peeling eyes than in those without ILM peeling when considering the risk bias (MD = -0.04; 95% CI = -0.07 to -0.01; P = 0.008). The short-term (<12 months) CMT had a higher reduction in non ILM peeling group (MD = -9.02; 95% CI = -12.51 to -5.54; P < 0.00001) and the recurrence of ERM in ILM peeling group was lower (P < 0.00001). The long-term (≥12months) BCVA improvement ((MD = -0.00; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.03; P = 0.97) and reduction of long-term (≥12months) CMT (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = -7.14 to -4.86; P = 0.71) were similar in both groups.
conclusionBy considering the risk of bias, we should determine whether ILM peeling is beneficial for short-term changes in BCVA in patients with iERM. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to confirm this. iERM removal without ILM peeling can improve the short-term decrease in CMT and ILM peeling decreases the recurrence of ERM, but the long-term changes in BCVA and CMT are similar with or without ILM peeling. There is a need for a true large scale randomized trial that will also include microperimetry and other functional measures.
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.