ArticleMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2021
Prognostic biomarkers of chronic diabetic macular edema treated with a fiuocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant.
Article in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2021. 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.
- Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers as Potential Predictors for Visual Function and Response to Intravitreal Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema.Journal of vitreoretinal diseases · 2026Article
- Optical coherence tomography in multiple sclerosis.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate retinal imaging biomarkers, such as disorganization of the retinal inner layers (DRIL) and/or ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and functional outcomes in eyes treated with 0.2 µg/day of a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) after an insufficient response to previous treatments. Methods: This was a retrospective comparative study of 18 eyes (15 patients) with persistent and/or recurrent diabetic macular edema (DME) treated with FAc. Eyes were divided according to the number of prior intravitreal treatments: group 1 (n = 8) with ≤ 6 injections (early switch) and group 2 (n = 10) with > 6 injections (late switch). Outcomes included percentage of eyes with DRIL and/or EZ disruption at baseline and analysis of the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using ETDRS letters, central macular thickness (CMT), DRIL, and EZ disruption at the last observation. Results: Group 2 revealed a significantly higher percentage of DRIL and/or EZ disruption than group 1 ( Conclusions: Patients with DME presenting with a lower percentage of DRIL and/or EZ disruption at baseline had better functional outcomes, supporting the possible benefit of an early switch to FAc after insufficient response to previous treatments. Future randomized studies with a larger patient cohort are warranted to confirm our conclusions.
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.