Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques.
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT04455399 (Time Efficiency Comparison of Two Intravitreal Injection Techniques), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Time Efficiency Comparison of Two Intravitreal Injection Techniques
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of intravitreal injection techniques with and without a speculum using eyelid retraction with a cotton-tipped applicator.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Intravitreal Plungerless Injector Device (IPLID): An Innovative Intravitreal Injector Device.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness, procedure time and safety outcomes of two different intravitreal injections (IVI) techniques.
methodsThis was a prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial of 200 adult eyes receiving intravitreal medications for various indications. Eyes were assigned (1:1) to undergo IVI using either an intravitreal injection guide (IIG) (n= 100) or conventional dual blade speculum plus surgical caliper (DBS) (n=100). All IVI were administered using a 30-gauge needle placed 4 mm posterior to the inferior limbus. The main outcome measures were rate of successful IVI administration, procedure time (seconds) as measured by a stopwatch from application to removal of IIG or DBS, patient preference for IVI technique and adverse events.
resultsThe two groups were similar in terms of mean age (P=0.398), laterality (P=0.671), indication for treatment (P=0.175) and medication type (P=0.489). All IVI procedures were successfully completed in both groups. The mean procedure time was shorter using the IIG (9.94 ± 2.87 seconds) versus DBS (21.85 ± 7.25 seconds) technique (P ≤ 0.01). The incidence of post-injection subconjunctival hemorrhage was higher when the DBS was applied (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.22-4.53). Patients with previous history of IVI preferred the IIG over the DBS. No other injection-related adverse events were observed in both groups.
conclusionDBS and IIG techniques are similarly effective and safe for the administration of intravitreal medications. The IIG appears to significantly reduce procedure time, be associated with a lower incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage and engender better patient acceptance. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04455399).
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.