ArticleScientific reports2021
Evaluation of efficacy and safety of new high-density dyes for chromovitrectomy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane Surgery in Patients Aged Over 80 Years: Efficacy and Safety.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two novel heavy dyes for macular surgery: DoubledyneTM and TwinTM. One eye from each of 144 patients undergoing surgery for macular hole or macular pucker was included in the study. The eyes were randomly divided into two groups according to the dye used during surgery. Best correct visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP) and retinal morphology assessed by ocular coherence tomography (OCT) were evaluated before and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Only one surgeon performed each operation and provided a score ranging from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) for quality of staining and comfort in surgery. Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS to compare parameters before and after surgery and between the two groups. No statistical differences were recorded in quality of staining (p = 0.11), in surgery comfort (p = 0.17) and total time of surgery (p = 0.44) between the two groups. BCVA statistically improved and central macular thickness (CMT) statistically decreased after surgery in both groups (p < 0.05). No toxic dye-related complications or long-term ones affecting the retina were observed in either group. According to this data, although confirmation in further studies with larger populations and longer follow up is required, DoubledyneTM and TwinTM proved to be safe and effective dyes for macular surgery.
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.