ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 μm.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Commentary: Retinal changes after internal limiting membrane peeling.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of papillomacular bundle (PMB) sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (group LP) and conventional ILM peeling (group CP) for treatment of idiopathic macular hole (MH) of ≤400 μm. Methods: Fifteen eyes were included in each group. In group CP, conventional 360° peeling was done, while in group LP, ILM was spared over PMB. The changes in peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) thickness were analyzed at 3 months. Results: MH was closed in all with comparable visual improvement. Postoperatively, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) was significantly thinner in the temporal quadrant in group CP. GC-IPL was significantly thinner in the temporal quadrants in group LP, whereas it was comparable in group CP. Conclusion: PMB sparing ILM peeling is comparable to conventional ILM peeling in terms of closure rate and visual gain, with the advantage of less retinal damage at 3 months.
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.