ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2022
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analyses.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Aflibercept 8 mg for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema in Italy: A Cost-Minimisation Analysis Based on an Indirect Treatment Comparison.Advances in therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Selective and nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Treatment of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy With Topical Difluprednate: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Article
- Therapeutic interventions for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: a comprehensive assessment of systematic reviews.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Review
- Real-world practice patterns of eplerenone use for central serous chorioretinopathy.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Article
- No-Dose Photodynamic Therapy Against Half-Dose Photodynamic Therapy for Treatment of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Pathomechanisms in central serous chorioretinopathy: A recent update.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Review
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are widely used for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSCR), but their effectiveness remains unclear. This research was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this drugs for cCSCR.
methodsThis is a review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing MRAs to placebo in adults with cCSCR, using the effects of MRAs on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and adverse events as primary outcomes and the effects of MRAs on anatomical parameters as secondary outcomes: central subfield thickness (CST), subretinal fluid height (SFH) and central choroidal thickness (CCT). Our all-language online search included Medline (via PubMed), Central, Embase, Lilacs, Ibecs, and RCT registers platforms, as late as May 2021. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2) to assess the methodological quality of each study and synthesized the results in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.
resultsThe search identified 302 records, five of which were eligible, totaling 225 cCSCR patients (aged 45-62 years; M/F ratio 3.1:1) treated for 1 to 12 months with spironolactone (50 mg/day) or eplerenone (50 mg/day) vs. placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests MRAs result in little to no improvement in BCVA compared to placebo (SMD 0.22; 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.48; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 218; I
conclusionMRAs have little to no effect on BCVA. Evidence for adverse events and CST is very uncertain. MRAs also have little to no effect on SFH and CCT. These findings should be considered when prescribing MRAs for cCSCR. This research was previous registration in the PROSPERO platform (CRD42020182601).
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.