Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36241963›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2022

Outcomes of Over 40,000 Eyes Treated for Diabetic Macula Edema in Routine Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hemal Mehta, Vuong Nguyen, Daniel Barthelmes, Suzann Pershing, Gloria C Chi, Pamela Dopart, Mark C Gillies

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A real-world study of Faricimab: efficacy and biomarkers in treatment-experienced neovascular age-related macular degeneration(nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME) patients.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Beyond VEGF: Targeting Inflammation and Other Pathways for Treatment of Retinal Disease.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Hemal MehtaSave Sight Registries, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, 8 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. hemal.mehta@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0606-9004
Vuong NguyenSave Sight Registries, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, 8 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Daniel BarthelmesSave Sight Registries, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, 8 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Suzann PershingByers Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Gloria C ChiGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Pamela DopartExponent, Inc., Bowie, MD, 20715, USA.
Mark C GilliesSave Sight Registries, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, 8 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUExponent (United States) · USVA Palo Alto Health Care System · US

Funding

Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe investigated effectiveness and safety outcomes of diabetic macula edema (DME) treatment in routine clinical practice.

methodsA literature search was conducted of peer-reviewed articles published from January 2011 to September 2021. Studies of DME treatment in real-world practice of at least 6 months with at least 50 eyes at baseline were included. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were excluded. The primary outcome for this meta-analysis was change in visual acuity (VA) 12 months after starting treatment.

resultsOf 3034 initially identified studies, 138 met selection criteria, representing more than 40,000 eyes. The mean 12-month VA gain was 4.6 letters (95% CI 3.7, 5.4; baseline 58.6) for vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), 4.4 (2.5, 6.3; baseline 54.2) for steroids, and 2.1 (- 1.2, 5.3; baseline 63.6) for macular laser. Australian and New Zealand studies had better baseline VA when initiating treatment compared with Asia, Europe, and North America, translating to better VA at 12 months. Fewer anti-VEGF injections were delivered in real-world practice than registrational RCTs. Neither systemic nor ocular safety was consistently reported.

conclusionsIntravitreal anti-VEGF or steroids for DME generally led to visual gains in real-world practice but these were less impressive than RCTs, with undertreatment and differences in baseline characteristics likely contributing factors.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyMacular EdemaAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntibodies, MonoclonalAustraliaBevacizumabEdemaHumansIntravitreal InjectionsRanibizumabReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorSteroidsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsAntibodies, MonoclonalBevacizumabRanibizumabReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorSteroidsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor ADiabetic macula edemaMeta-analysisObservationalOutcomesReal-world dataSystematic reviewTreatment

Identifiers

PMID36241963
PMCPMC9618488
OpenAlexW4306248927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.