ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
Defining a Cutoff for Progression of Macular Holes.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic Structural Recovery Parameters Enhance Prediction of Visual Outcomes After Macular Hole Surgery.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Analysing the translatability of macular hole size measurements between high-density horizontal and radial OCT scan patterns.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based algorithm for the detection of idiopathic full thickness macular holes in spectral domain optical coherence tomography.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine a cutoff for progression of idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (MH) size. Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients waiting 4 weeks for MH surgery. Two observers performed 3 repeat sets of MH size measurements on optical coherence tomography (OCT) high-density radial scans taken at first presentation and 4 weeks later before surgery. Primary outcome was the definition of a cutoff for true enlargement of MH size versus measurement error. Secondary outcomes were risk factors for change in minimum linear diameter (MLD) size and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Results: Fifty-one patients were included with a mean MH size of 334 µm (±179 µm; range 39 to 793 µm). The cutoff for an increase in MLD size calculated as the outer confidence limit for the 99.73% limits of agreement was 31 µm. This was independent of MH size. Using this cutoff, MLD size increased in 9/34 (26.5%) of patients without and in 14 of 17 (82.4%) of patients with vitreomacular traction (VMT; P < 0.001). Mean BCVA deteriorated in patients in whom the MH had progressed from 0.62 (±0.23) logMAR to 0.82 (±0.29; P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant change in BCVA in patients without MH progression (P = 0.25). In 31% (16/51) of patients, classification of their MHs (small ≤250 µm, medium 251-400 µm, and large >400 µm) changed over the 4-week period. Conclusions: Using a cutoff discriminates change from measurement error. A significant proportion of MHs progressed by 4 weeks, particularly in the presence of VMT. Translational Relevance: The established cutoff enables clinicians to differentiate true MH enlargement from measurement error.
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.