ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Long-Standing Macula-Involving Diabetic Tractional Retinal Detachments with Good Visual Acuity: How Should We Manage These Patients?
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We assess the merits of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in subjects with good visual acuity (VA) and a chronic macula-involving tractional retinal detachment (TRD) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Methods: A retrospective review of medical records was undertaken. Subjects were divided into 1) a Study Group of subjects who underwent prompt PPV and 2) a Control Group of subjects in which PPV was deferred in favor of less invasive treatment options or observations. Both study and control subjects had a baseline Snellen VA of ≥20/50 and a PDR-associated macula-involving TRD of >6 months duration with a minimum follow-up of 12-months. Results: There were 58 patients analyzed over an average follow-up period of 27.6 (±7.1) months. The change in VA was similar in the Study Group compared to the Control Group (p=0.94) with both groups losing about three lines of VA during the study period (-0.30 ±0.52 logMAR). Although the rates of maintaining ≥20/200 Snellen VA and ≥20/50 Snellen VA were similar in the Study Group compared to the Control Group (p=0.55 and p=0.28, respectively), the Study Group had more subjects gaining ≥2 lines of VA during the study period (p=0.002). Conclusion: Patients presenting with good VA and a PDR-associated macula-involving TRD of >6 months were more likely to gain ≥2 lines of VA when PPV was performed at baseline compared to PPV deferral until further deterioration occurred.
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.