ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Comparison of Pain Scores Among Patients Undergoing Conventional and Novel Panretinal Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of music therapy in patients with diabetic retinopathy undergoing pan‑retinal photocoagulation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Natural remedies proposed for the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR): diabetic complications.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Pain Management Strategies before Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Investigation of the reasons for delayed presentation in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients.PloS one · 2024Article
- Multimodal imaging of unusual macular macroaneurysm rupture after navigated retinal laser in a patient with adult onset Coats disease.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo summarize key findings from a systematic review focusing on pain as an adverse outcome of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) among patients with diabetic retinopathy.
designSystematic review.
methodsWe systematically searched articles in major databases from July to September 2020. Studies that compared pain outcomes of PRP among diabetic patients who underwent conventional single-spot laser (SSL), conventional multi-spot laser (MSL), and/or novel navigated laser (NNL) were included. The Cochrane RoB 2 tool and ROBINS-I tool were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), respectively.
resultsWe included 13 RCTs and 4 CCTs. Thirteen studies were included for Comparison 1 (Conventional SSL versus Conventional MSL), 3 studies were included for Comparison 2 (NNL versus Conventional MSL), and 3 studies were included for Comparison 3 (NNL versus Conventional SSL). A total of 783 patients and 1961 eyes were included in this review. The review showed that NNL yielded the lowest pain scores, followed by conventional MSL, then by conventional SSL.
conclusionThis review summarizes findings of multiple studies that reported pain as an adverse outcome of PRP among patients with advanced diabetic retinopathy. Data from RCTs with mostly some concerns for bias (RoB 2 tool) and CCTs with mostly moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I tool) show benefit of using MSL over SSL, and NNL over conventional systems for PRP in diabetic retinopathy, considering pain as the primary outcome.
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.