ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Lamellar macular defects: are degenerative lamellar macular holes truly degenerative?
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- EPIRETINAL PROLIFERATION EMBEDDING WITHOUT INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING FOR LAMELLAR MACULAR HOLE.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Comparisons of Clinical and Functional Characteristics of Patients with Epiretinal Membrane, Macular Pseudohole, Epiretinal Membrane Foveoschisis, and Lamellar Macular Hole.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Functional and Anatomical Outcomes of Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Lamellar Macular Hole: Long-Term Follow-Up.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Volumetric Biomarkers of Visual Outcome after Surgical Repair in Lamellar Macular Holes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate morpho-functional changes after surgical treatment for ERM foveoschisis or lamellar macular hole (LMH), and to evaluate whether the two entities are associated with different healing processes and long-term outcomes. Design: Retrospective interventional case series. Methods: A total of 56 eyes, treated for lamellar macular defects and followed up for 24 months, were enrolled. The eyes were divided into two groups: 34 with ERM foveoschisis and 22 with LMH. Changes in the following features were evaluated and compared between the two groups: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) defects, central foveal thickness (CFT), and autofluorescence (FAF) diameter and area. Results: After surgery, progressive BCVA improvement was observed with no significant difference between the two groups ( Conclusion: In the present study, significant functional and microstructural improvements were observed after surgery for both ERM foveoschisis and LMH, demonstrating considerable repair potential in both types of lamellar defects. These findings question the true "degenerative" nature of LMH.
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.