Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33667237›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Primary vitrectomy for degenerative and tractional lamellar macular holes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guglielmo Parisi, Matteo Fallico, Andrea Maugeri, Martina Barchitta, Antonella Agodi, Andrea Russo, Antonio Longo, Teresio Avitabile, Niccolò Castellino, Vincenza Bonfiglio and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Epiretinal membrane: an overview and update.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Primary Lamellar Macular Holes: To Vit or Not to Vit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  18. Improving morphological outcome in lamellar macular hole surgery by using highly concentrated autologous platelet-rich plasma.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Guglielmo ParisiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0795-618X
Matteo FallicoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2639-1321
Andrea MaugeriDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Martina BarchittaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Antonella AgodiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Andrea RussoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Antonio LongoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Teresio AvitabileDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Niccolò CastellinoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Vincenza BonfiglioDepartment of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neuroscience, Ophthalmology Section, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Roberto Dell'OmoDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy.
Claudio FurinoDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Gilda CennamoDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Robert RejdakDepartment of General Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Katarzyna NowomiejskaDepartment of General Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Mario ToroDepartment of General Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7152-2613
Paola MaroloDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic Section, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Luca VentreDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic Section, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3182-557X
Michele ReibaldiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic Section, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
University of Catania · ITMedical University of Lublin · PLUniversity of Turin · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Molise · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the efficacy of vitrectomy in degenerative and tractional lamellar macular holes (LMHs) by meta-analysis of published studies.

methodsPubMed, Medline and Embase databases were searched up to May 2020. Included cohorts were divided into three groups: degenerative LMH group, lamellar hole associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) group and tractional LMH group. LHEP is likely to be associated with degenerative LMHs, but less commonly could be associated with mixed LMHs. To reduce risk of possible misclassification bias, eyes with LHEP which could not have been precisely classified by the authors, were included into the LHEP group. The primary outcome was to investigate the visual change following primary vitrectomy in the degenerative LMH and LHEP group versus the tractional LMH group. A sensitivity analysis excluding the LHEP group was also performed on the primary outcome. Mean difference (MD) in best corrected visual acuity between baseline and post-treatment was calculated, along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Rate of incidence of post-operative full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) was assessed as secondary outcome.

resultsThirteen studies were included. Pooled analyses including all groups showed a significant visual improvement following vitrectomy (pre-post MD = -0.17;95%CI = -0.22,-0.12;p<0.001), with no difference in visual improvement between the degenerative LMH and LHEP group and the tractional LMH group. The sensitivity analysis excluding LHEP group confirmed no difference in visual change between the degenerative LMH group (pre-post MD = -0.18;95%CI = -0.24,-0.12;p<0.001) and the tractional LMH group (MD = -0.16;95%CI = -0.26,-0.07;p<0.001). The incidence rate of post-operative FTMH was higher in the degenerative LMH and LHEP group than in the tractional LMH group (p = 0.002).

conclusionPrimary vitrectomy for LMH ensured a favorable visual outcome, with no difference in visual gain between degenerative and tractional LMHs. However, a higher incidence of post-operative FTMHs was found in eyes with the degenerative LMH subtype.

Indexed as

VitrectomyHumansRetinal PerforationsVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID33667237
PMCPMC7935291
OpenAlexW3134907440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.