ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
Microperimetric evaluation for different methods of epiretinal membrane surgery.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inner retinal trauma from double-staining chromodissection.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Microperimetric evaluation and predictive factors of visual recovery after successful inverted internal limiting membrane-flap technique for macular hole in high myopic eyes.Frontiers in medicine · 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
purposeTo investigate the anatomic and functional outcomes using microperimetry for the surgical methods for idiopathic epiretinal membranes (ERM).
methodsThis retrospective study included 41 eyes from 41 patients. All patients underwent combined epiretinal membrane and cataract surgery. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography, and microperimetry were performed before and 6 months and 1 year after surgery. The patients were divided into 3 groups; "ERM removal only without indocyanine green (ICG) staining", "ERM and internal limiting membrane (ILM) removal without ICG staining", and "ERM and ILM removal with ICG staining".
resultsPreoperatively, the ages, BCVAs, central macular thickness (CMT), and mean retinal sensitivities of central 6° (MRSs) of the groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, the MRSs of the "ERM removal only without ICG staining" and "ERM and ILM removal without ICG staining" groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The MRSs of the "ERM and ILM removal without ICG staining" and "ERM and ILM removal with ICG staining" groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). However, the MRSs of the "ERM and ILM removal with ICG staining" group significantly reduced than "ERM removal only without ICG staining" group (p < 0.05).
conclusionThis retrospective study found reduced retinal sensitivity in ERM and ILM removal with ICG staining group compared to ERM removal only without ICG staining. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required.
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.