ArticleBiomedical journal2024
Real-world effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implants - Comparison between eyes eligible and ineligible for clinical trials and their associated outcomes.
Article in Biomedical journal, 2024. 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.
- Long term efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in retinal vein occlusions: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Validation of Diagnostic Codes to Identify Glaucoma in Taiwan's Claims Data: A Multi-Institutional Study.Clinical epidemiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcerns about the generalizability of pivotal randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) findings have been raised. We aimed to compare intravitreal dexamethasone implants' (IDIs) effectiveness for diabetic macular edema (DME) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), between eyes eligible and ineligible for pRCTs.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed Taiwan's Chang Gung Research Database, including DME or CRVO eyes initiating IDIs during 2015-2020. We classified all treated eyes as eligible or ineligible for pRCTs following major selection criteria of the MEAD and GENEVA trials, and evaluated three-, six-, and twelve-month changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) and visual acuity (VA) after initiating IDIs.
resultsWe included 177 IDI-treated eyes (DME: 72.3%; CRVO: 27.7%), of which 39.8% and 55.1% were ineligible for DME and CRVO pRCTs, respectively. LogMAR-VA and CRT changes at different times were comparable in DME eyes eligible (LogMAR-VA difference: 0.11 to 0.16; CRT difference: -32.7 to -96.9 μm) and ineligible (LogMAR-VA difference: -0.01 to 0.15; CRT difference: -54.5 to -109.3 μm) for the MEAD trial. By contrast, CRVO eyes ineligible for the GENEVA trial had greater LogMAR-VA changes (0.37 ~ 0.50) than those eligible (0.05 ~ 0.13), with comparable CRT reductions (eligible eyes: -72.3 to -106.4 μm; ineligible eyes: -61.8 to -110.7 μm) (all p-values <0.05 of the mean differences between eligible and ineligible CRVO eyes for all follow-ups).
conclusionsIDIs had similar VA and CRT outcomes among DME eyes, regardless of pRCT-eligibility. However, among CRVO eyes, those ineligible for pRCTs showed greater deterioration in VA than those eligible.
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.