ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Subthreshold laser treatment for non-center involved diabetic macular edema via non-damaging retinal laser therapy (NRT).
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of subthreshold laser treatment via non-damaging retinal laser therapy (NRT) in patients with non-center involved diabetic macular edema (non-CI DME).
methodsIn this prospective controlled study, NRT with 577 nm wavelength was performed to the edematous inner subfields as needed at 3 monthly intervals, while the control group received no treatment. If CI-DME developed in either group, intravitreal anti-VEGF was performed and the eye was excluded from subsequent analysis.
resultsA total of 75 eyes (36 study eyes, 39 controls) were evaluated. The change in superior, nasal and temporal inner subfield thicknesses over time and between groups was found significant (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P = 0.04 respectively). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change was not significant over time and between groups (P = 0.69). Rates of CI-DME development requiring intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment were not different during the first and second years (P = 0.171, 0.908). No laser scar was detected in any eye in fundus autofluorescence imaging.
conclusionNRT performed as needed at 3 monthly intervals is effective after 21 months of follow up in the treatment of non-CI DME and it was safe. With this method, it may be foreseen that BCVA will be better preserved in the long term by avoiding the possible side effects of conventional laser.
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.