ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparison of the fluorescein angiography-guided and indocyanine green angiography-guided photodynamic therapy in the treatment of non-resolving central serous chorioretinopathy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal retinal imaging evaluation of macular degeneration persistent disease activity animal model in Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic rabbits.Experimental eye research · 2025Article
- Pachychoroid disease: review and update.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Review
- Unraveling the Puzzle of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy: Exploring Psychological Factors and Pathophysiological Mechanisms.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Review
- Fluorescein versus Indocyanine Green Angiography Guided Half-Dose Photodynamic Therapy for Chronic Central Serous Chorioretinopathy.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the functional and anatomical outcome of fluorescein angiography (FA) versus indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) guided photodynamic therapy (PDT) in the treatment of non-resolving central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR). In this prospective interventional case series, all patients with non-resolving CSCR, defined as persistent SRF involving subfoveal area for at least three months, were nonrandomly assigned to receive either FA or ICGA-guided half dose PDT. Baseline and 4 months post-treatment data including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the status of foveal subretinal fluid, subfoveal choroidal thickness, choroidal vascularity index, pigment epithelial detachment area, treatment and PDT spot numbers were collected. Thirty-six eyes were included; 24 received ICGA-guided and 12 received FA-guided PDT. Overall, improvement in BCVA and choroidal parameters were observed in all patients. There was no significant difference in baseline parameters as well as follow-up measurements between groups. However, the mean total energy dose and spot number in the IGCA-guided PDT were significantly higher than the FA-guided PDT group (P = 0.001). Both FA-guided and ICGA-guided half-dose PDT were effective in the treatment of non-resolving CSCR, with favorable functional and anatomical outcome. In FA group, PDT with smaller spot sizes and fewer numbers of spots were applied.
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.