ArticleScientific reports2023
Outcomes of cystoid macular edema following Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty in a referral center for keratoplasty in Spain: retrospective study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Corneal Artificial Endothelial Layer (EndoArt): Literature Review and Our Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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 at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of eyes with visually significant cystoid macular œdema (vs-CMO) after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in a referral center for keratoplasty in Spain. We conducted a retrospective, single-surgeon case series of eyes that developed post-DMEK vs-CMO performed between January 2011 and December 2020. Data collected included: indication for DMEK; biometric data; ocular comorbidities; past medical history; time to detection of vs-CMO after DMEK (T, weeks); best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR) and central retinal thickness (CRT, µm) at diagnosis of vs-CMO, after resolution of CMO, and at last follow-up; and management strategy. Main outcomes analyzed were incidence of vs-CMO, improvement in BCVA and CRT after treatment of vs-CMO. Of 291 consecutive DMEK surgeries, 14 eyes of 13 patients (4.8%) developed vs-CMO. Five patients (38.5%) had history of CMO, and 28.6% of eyes had ophthalmic comorbidities. Median (P25-P75) T was 4 (3-10) weeks. Treatment success was observed in 12/13 eyes (92.3%), two of which required second-line treatment. In successful cases (median time-to-resolution 3.0 (2.0-3.5) months), median BCVA improved from 0.60 (0.40-0.80) logMAR to 0.30 (0.15-0.40) logMAR (p = 0.002) after treatment, and median CRT improved from 582.5 (400.0-655.0) µm to 278.0 (258.0-294.0) µm (p = 0.005). In our study, we found a 4.8% rate of post-DMEK vs-CMO, with most cases occurring in the first 3 months after surgery. Good functional and anatomical outcomes are expected in most eyes, without treatment-related complications or implications in graft outcomes. Additional studies are encouraged to determine a standardized protocol for post-DMEK vs-CMO.
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.