ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023
The progress of assessment methods and treatments of neovascular glaucoma secondary to central retinal vein occlusion.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neovascular glaucoma associated with central retinal vein occlusion in a young patient with hyperlipidemia.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Construction of a predictive model for the efficacy of anti-VEGF therapy in macular edema patients based on OCT imaging: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Retinal Vein Occlusion-Background Knowledge and Foreground Knowledge Prospects-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neovascular glaucoma is a condition that results from central retinal vein occlusion and often leads to blindness. Accurate evaluation and appropriate treatment are crucial for patients. However, there is currently no uniform and clear standard to differentiate between ischemic and non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion. Also, the assessment of neovascular glaucoma progression is uncertain. Meanwhile, although pan-retinal photocoagulation is a standard treatment to prevent the onset of neovascular glaucoma, its actual efficacy and the timing of intervention remain highly controversial. It is still challenging to balance the risks of side effects in the visual field against the uncertain effectiveness of the treatment. This paper delves into the pathogenesis of neovascular glaucoma to understand the development of therapeutic approaches. By taking into account various assessment criteria of central retinal vein occlusion and neovascular glaucoma over the years, combining functional tests and morphological tests provides the most accurate and rigorous solution. The age of patients, the extent, location, and duration of retinal ischemia are the primary factors that affect the severity and extent of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion and induce serious complications. From the perspective of prevention and treatment, the ischemic index is closely related to the development of neovascularization. The paper provides essential insights into the mechanism, efficacy, complications, and optimal timing of pan-retinal photocoagulation. Comparing the treatment effects of pan-retinal photocoagulation and intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, we suggest a combination of both treatments to explore effective treatment with fewer side effects in the long term. This article details the debate on the above issues and explores ideas for the clinical diagnosis and preventive treatment of neovascular glaucoma that results from ischemic central retinal vein occlusion.
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.