ArticleHeliyon2023
Effect of internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrastructural Findings of the Internal Limiting Membrane with and without Epiretinal Membrane: A Comparative Electron Microscopy Study.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Bibliometric analysis of research trends on the epiretinal membrane since 2000.Acta biochimica Polonica · 2026Article
- Article
- Surgical management, use and efficacy of adjuvant dyes in idiopathic epiretinal membranes: a systemic review with network meta-analysis.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To further evaluate the necessity of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for patients with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM). Method: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from their inception up to August 24, 2021. Eligible meta-analyses comparing iERM removal with and without ILM peeling were included. AMSTAR and GRADE classification was used to assess the methodological quality of each study and the quality for each outcome, respectively. The primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and recurrence. Results: 10 meta-analyses were included. 75.9% of studies revealed no statistically significant difference in BCVA between the groups, while only 10.3% showed better BCVA favorable to additional ILM peeling. 54.2% reported no significant difference in CMT between the groups, followed by 41.7% showing thicker CMT due to additional ILM peeling. Compared to iERM removal alone, additional ILM peeling provided a lower recurrence rate in 66.7% of studies. Conclusion: ILM peeling could significantly reduce recurrence rate, but not significantly improve the recovery of visual outcome or decrease the thickness of central macula.
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.