ArticleCureus2024
Continuous Laser Versus Micropulse Laser in the Treatment of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Short-term effectiveness of intelligent navigated laser photocoagulation versus subthreshold micropulse laser in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
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
backgroundCentral serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) is a retinal disorder characterized by complex mechanisms leading to abnormal fluid accumulation under the retina. While management remains controversial, laser therapy has been successfully used. This study compares the efficacy of continuous laser (CL) and micropulse laser (ML) therapy in treating CSCR, focusing on reduction in macular thickness and improvement in visual acuity.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, including patients with CSCR treated with either CL or ML. The primary outcome measured was the reduction in average macular thickness (AMT), alongside secondary outcomes like changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), and resolution of subretinal fluid (SRF).
resultsThe study evaluated 121 patients with CSCR, treated either with CL or ML. The primary outcome showed that the mean reduction in AMT was 51.14 µm (±20) in the CL group and 29.88 µm (±22) in the ML group, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.10). For the secondary outcomes, the improvement in BCVA was comparable in both groups, with CL at 0.15 (±0.1) and ML at 0.12 (±0.1) and no significant difference (p=0.41). However, in SFCT reduction, CL showed greater efficacy with a mean reduction of 32.19 µm (±15) compared to ML's 4.85 µm (±18), which was statistically significant (p=0.0004). The degree of SRF resolution showed no significant difference between the treatments (p=0.065).
conclusionsBoth CL and ML are effective in the management of CSCR, with CL being more effective in reducing SFCT. These findings suggest the need for personalized treatment strategies based on individual patient characteristics and underline the complexity of CSCR management.
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.