ArticlePharmaceutics2023
Relevance of Visual Acuity Measurement for Therapeutic Decisions in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 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.
- One-year results of visual response following intravitreal novel anti-VEGF injection for diabetic macular edema in a Latino population.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the validity of basing retreatment decisions on anatomical criteria alone (captured using optical coherence tomography (OCT)-OCT-guided strategy) rather than the gold standard (combined visual acuity (VA) and OCT) in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). This cross-sectional study included 81 eyes undergoing treatment for DME from September 2021 to December 2021. An initial therapeutic treatment decision based on OCT results was made on inclusion. Subsequently, in light of the patient's VA score, this initial decision was upheld or adjusted, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. In 67 out of the 81 eyes included in the study (82.7%), the OCT-guided strategy produced equivalent results to the gold standard. In this study, the OCT-guided retreatment decision strategy yielded sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 73.8%, respectively, and PPV and NPV of 76.6% and 91.2%, respectively. These findings differed according to the patient's treatment regimen: the sensitivity and specificity for eyes under a treat and extend regimen was higher, 100% and 88.9%, respectively, than eyes under a Pro Re Nata regimen, 90% and 69.7%, respectively. These findings show that VA testing could be omitted from the follow-up of certain patients with DME treated with intravitreal injections without impacting the quality of care.
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.