ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Spectral domain optical coherence tomography findings of patients with pars planitis and risk factors affecting visual acuity.
Article 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal imaging in pediatric uveitis.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) findings of 42 eyes with pars planitis and to identify risk factors affecting visual acuity.
methodsMedical records and SD-OCT findings were retrospectively reviewed.
resultsMean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.248 ± 0.3 on the logMAR scale at baseline. SD-OCT findings included epiretinal membrane (ERM) in 16 (38.1%) eyes, loss of normal foveal contour appearance in 8 (19.0%), ellipsoid zone (EZ) damage in 5 (11.9%), external limiting membrane (ELM) damage in 3 (7.1%), disruption of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) in 2 (4.8%), and macular atrophy in 1 (2.4%). There was macular edema in 10 (23.8%) eyes [cystoid macular edema (CME) in 8 (19.0%), diffuse macular edema (DME) in 6 (14.3%), and serous retinal detachment in 2 (4.8%)]. The mean central macular thickness (CMT) was 272.1 ± 319.5 μm. Patients were followed up for a mean of 50.6 ± 36.7 months. Mean BCVA was 0.210 ± 0.3 at the final evaluation. SD-OCT findings included ERM in 28 (66.7%) eyes, EZ damage in 6 (14.3%), ELM damage in 3 (7.1%), disruption of RPE in 4 (9.5%), loss of normal foveal contour appearance in 12 (28.6%), and macular atrophy in 2 (4.8%). There was CME and/or DME in 6 (14.3%) eyes. The mean CMT was 238 ± 220.9 μm and was significantly lower than the baseline (p < 0.001). According to multivariate linear regression analysis, the presence of DME, and loss of normal foveal contour appearance at baseline were the independent factors associated with BCVA at the final examination (B = 0.726, p < 0.001; B = 0.766, p < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionsDME and loss of normal foveal contour appearance were more likely to have adverse effects on visual acuity.
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.