ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Half-dose photodynamic therapy versus 577 nm subthreshold pulse laser therapy in treatment-naive patients with central serous chorioretinopathy.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. 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.
- Treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy in comparison-microsecond-pulse laser versus photodynamic therapy.Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- [Treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy in comparison-Micropulse laser versus photodynamic therapy].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
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
backgroundTo compare real-life anatomical and functional outcomes of half-dose photodynamic therapy (HD-PDT) and 577 nm subthreshold pulse laser therapy (SPL) in treatment-naïve patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed consecutive treatment-naïve CSC patients with non-resolving subretinal fluid (SRF) for more than 2 months who received either HD-PDT or SPL treatment. One repetition of the same treatment was allowed in patients with persistent SRF after first treatment. Functional and anatomical outcomes were assessed after first treatment and at final visit.
resultsWe included 95 patients (HD-PDT group, n = 49; SPL group, n = 46). Complete resolution of SRF after a single treatment was observed in 42.9% of HD-PDT-treated patients (n = 21; median time to resolution 7.1 weeks) and in 41.3% of SPL-treated patients (n = 19; median time to resolution 7.0 weeks). In the HD-PDT-group, 44.9% of patients (n = 22) and in the SPL-group, 43.5% (n = 20) of patients, received a second treatment due to persistent SRF, while 12.2% (n = 6) and 15.2% (n = 7), respectively, opted against a second treatment despite persistent SRF. After the final treatment, complete SRF resolution was observed in 61.2% of all HD-PDT-treated patients (n = 30; median time to resolution 8.8 weeks) and 60.9% of all SPL-treated patients (n = 28; median time to resolution 13.7 weeks, p = 0.876). In the final visit, both groups showed significant improvement of BCVA in comparison to baseline (p < 0.001 for all). The change in BCVA from baseline to final visit was similar for the two groups (HD-PDT, median BCVA change 0.10 logMAR (IQR: 0.0-0.2); in SPL group, median BCVA change 0.10 logMAR (IQR: 0.0-0.2), P = 0.344). The CSC subclassification (simple versus complex) had no influence on the anatomical or functional outcome.
conclusionsHigh-density 577 nm SPL resulted in as good anatomical and functional treatment as HD-PDT and may thus represent a treatment alternative to HD-PDT in CSC.
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.