ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
The effect comparison of ILM flap and traditional ILM peeling in iMH.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Critical analysis of macular hole repair techniques: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing internal limiting membrane flap and internal limiting membrane peeling for any size of macular hole.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Versus Conventional Peeling for Idiopathic Full Thickness Macular Holes: A Registry Analysis of 2990 Eyes.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the changes in anatomical structure and visual function after idiopathic macular hole (iMH) treatment with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and inverted ILM flap and determine the value of the inverted ILM flap for the treatment of iMH. Methods: Forty-nine patients with iMH (49 eyes) were included in this study and followed up for 1 year (12 months) after treatment with inverted ILM flap and ILM peeling respectively. The main foveal parameters assessed included the preoperative minimum diameter (MD), intraoperative residual fragments, and postoperative ELM reconstruction. Visual function was assessed using best-corrected visual acuity. Results: The hole closure rate was 100% for 49 patients; 15 patients were treated with the inverted ILM flap, and 34 patients underwent ILM peeling. There were no differences between the postoperative best-corrected visual acuities and the rates of ELM reconstruction for the flap and peeling groups with different MDs. In the flap group, ELM reconstruction was associated with the preoperative MD, presence of an ILM flap, and hyperreflective changes in the inner retina 1 month after surgery. In the peeling group, ELM reconstruction was associated with the preoperative MD, intraoperative residual fragments at the hole edge, and hyperreflective changes in the inner retina. Conclusion: The inverted ILM flap and the ILM Peeling were both able to obtain high closure rate. However, the inverted ILM flap showed no obvious advantages related to anatomical morphology and visual function over ILM peeling.
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.