ArticleMedicine2021
Comparative efficacy and safety of antivascular endothelial growth factors for central retinal vein occlusion: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of high-risk optic disc on central retinal vein occlusion in patients with metabolic disorders.Frontiers in physiology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is one of the most common retinal vascular diseases, which is closely related to systemic diseases like hypertension, diabetes and arteriosclerosis. Due of its blinding, it will seriously reduce the quality of life. Macular edema (ME) caused by CRVO is one of the serious complications of visual impairment. We found that the severity of ME in CRVO was positively associated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the anterior chamber. With the accelerated pace of modern life and the changed dietary structure, the incidence of this disease will continue to rise. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to seek effective treatment methods. Intraocular injection of anti-VEGF can effectively alleviate ME and improve visual acuity, showing excellent clinical application prospects. In recent years, there have been some new understandings and advances on the etiology and treatment methods of the present disease, such as the deepening into the molecular biology and gene level. Clinical studies on the efficacy of the disease have emerging. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-VEGF treatment for CRVO is particularly necessary to systematically compare its efficacy.
methodsThe two reviewers will comprehensively retrieved electronic databases such as PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, Web of Science, Chinese Scientifific Journals Database, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and China BioMedical Literature. A randomized controlled trial for CRVO against VEGF between January 2010 and June 2021 was included according to the relevant content of the study. In addition, 2 researchers will screen the literature to assess the risk bias for the included articles. We will evaluate the collected evidence and data using a Bayesian NMA method, and analyzed it with STATA and WinBUGS software.
resultsAnti-VEGF is one of the effective methods for ME in CRVO patients, accordingly, this study will evaluate its efficacy and safety using a Bayesian NMA system.
conclusionThis study can provide an effective rationale for the clinical application of anti-VEGF for CRVO, contribute to the treatment of CRVO and patient condition rehabilitation in clinical work. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Do not require. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY2021110073.
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.