ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Determining the Superiority of Vitrectomy vs Aflibercept for Treating Dense Diabetic Vitreous Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term treatment outcomes of the ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 for vitreous hemorrhage secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Genetic Susceptibility and Genetic Variant-Diet Interactions in Diabetic Retinopathy: A Cross-Sectional Case-Control Study.Nutrients · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) and vitrectomy for treating severe vitreous hemorrhage (VH) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy, including the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US National Library of Medicine databases, was developed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vitrectomy and IVA for managing VH due to PDR (participant age ≥ 18 years). The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean visual acuity between the two treatment groups at 1, 6, and 24 months. Outcome measures included clearance of VH (in weeks), the incidence of recurrent VH, and the rate of complications. The studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Bias (ROB) tool. We identified 774 articles; six articles met the inclusion criteria, and two were ultimately included (n = 239 eyes). With or without PRP, IVA injections and vitrectomy were performed in 117 and 122 eyes, respectively. The mean BCVA at one month was significantly better in the vitrectomy group (MD=0.22, CI:0.10-0.34, p=0.0003), but no difference was found at six months (MD=0.04, CI: -0.04-0.12, p=0.356). The incidence of recurrent VH was significantly higher in the IVA group (OR=5.05, CI:2.71-9.42, p<0.0001). The probability of recurrent VH was five times greater in the IVA group than that in the vitrectomy group. There were no significant differences in the overall proportions of intra- or postoperative complications (OR=0.64, CI: 0.09-4.85, p=0.669). None of the studies had a low ROB in any of the seven domains. We conclude that IVA can be considered a viable treatment modality for diabetic VH in patients with a good follow-up. Vitrectomy initially provides better visual effect, faster VH recovery, and lower VH recurrence than IVA injections.
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.