ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Face-Down Posture versus Non-Face-Down Posture following Large Idiopathic Macular Hole Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Face-down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Application of subretinal injection of balanced salt solution for the management of large-diameter macular holes.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Gas versus GaslEss surgery for full thickness Macular hole (GEM): study protocol for a randomised, assessor-masked, surgical feasibility study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence regarding the effect of a face-down posture (FDP) for large idiopathic macular hole (IMH) is inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether a postoperative FDP is required for the treatment of large IMH. Eligible randomized controlled trials published before September 2021 were retrieved from the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The efficacy outcome was the IMH closure rate and the visual acuity improvement rate. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach was implemented, and the numbers needed-to-treat (NNTs) were calculated. Seven studies comprising 640 patients were included. We performed a predefined subgroup analysis of IMH size using a cut-off point of 400 µm. Compared with non-FDP, a significant effect of FDP was found in the IMH > 400 µm group (OR = 3.34; 95% CI = 1.57-7.14; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI = 1.20-11.58; NNTs = 7.9). After stratifying by the posturing periods, the beneficial effect of FDP lasting at least five days, but not three days was observed for large IMH. Maintaining a FDP for at least five days postoperatively is an effective strategy (certainty of evidence: "moderate") for treating large IMH.
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.