ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022
Morphological and Functional Features in Patients with Idiopathic Macular Hole Treatment.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of conbercept and ranibizumab for the treatment of idiopathic choroidal neovascularization using optical coherence tomography angiography and multifocal electroretinography.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Effect of internal limiting membrane surgical techniques on the idiopathic and refractory management of macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2024Review
- Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling and Gas Tamponade For Full-Thickness Macular Holes of Different Etiology - Is It Still Relevant?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography features in patients with idiopathic macular hole (IMH) before and after vitrectomy. Patients and Methods: This prospective study was conducted at Shanxi Eye Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021. Twenty-five eyes of 25 patients with unilateral IMH, the unaffected fellow eyes, and 30 eyes of healthy patients were investigated. All unilateral IMH eyes underwent vitrectomy. Results: The IMH eyes had significantly delayed latency (rings 2-5) of mfERG compared with the healthy control eyes, and the amplitude density of all rings of mfERG was reduced (P < 0.05). When comparing the mfERG components before surgery and at the follow-up, the amplitude density of IMH eyes (ring 1, 3, 4 and 5) was increased significantly (P < 0.05). The delayed implicit times of the second and fifth ring were significantly shortened compared with those of preoperative eyes (P < 0.05). The mean delayed implicit time of mfERG in six months after surgery was negatively correlated with visual acuity (r = -0.890, P = 0.043). Significant differences of superficial retinal blood flow density (SRBFD, P < 0.001) and choroidal blood flow density (CBFD) (P < 0.05) got via OCTA were found between IMH before surgery and healthy control eyes. SRBFD of the fellow eyes were significantly different with the healthy control eyes (P = 0.038). Statistically significance of SRBFD and CBFD changes in IMH eyes were found before and after surgery (P < 0.05). Conclusion: IMH eyes had a decreased amplitude density and a delayed implicit time in some regions. Additionally, SRBFD and CBFD were both increased after vitrectomy, which suggests that the blood supply of the retina and choroid is partially restored after vitrectomy.
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.