SynthesisPloS one2024
Efficacy of inverted inner limiting membrane flap technique for macular holes of ≤400 μm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Preoperative OCT Biomarkers as Predictors of Postoperative Functional Outcome Assessed by Microperimetry After Inverted ILM Flap Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ILM flap coverage versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique in full-thickness macular holes (MHs) with a size of ≤400 μm compared to the ILM peeling technique.
methodsRelated literatures that compared inverted ILM flap and ILM peeling in MHs ≤ 400 μm were reviewed by searching electronic databases including Pubmed, EMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library up to April 2023. The primary outcome measure was hole closure rate, and the secondary outcome measures were the mean postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal sensitivity, and outer status of the retinal layers, including the external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone. The quality of the articles was assessed according to the revised version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. In the case of heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, and publication bias was visually evaluated using a funnel plot.
resultsThis review included six studies with 610 eyes for the primary outcome and 385 eyes for the secondary outcomes, which were two randomized control trials and four retrospective studies. Pooled data revealed that the overall MH closure rate was 99.4% in the inverted ILM flap group and 96.2% in the ILM peeling group, without significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.82~18.69; P = 0.09). The inverted ILM flap technique did not have a favorable effect on the BCVA, retinal sensitivity, or recovery of the outer retinal layers. These results were consistent with those of the subgroup analysis of the different follow-up periods. No significant publication bias was observed.
conclusionIn eyes with MHs of ≤400 μm, both techniques demonstrated excellent surgical outcomes without significant differences. Therefore, surgical techniques can be selected according to surgeon preferences.
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.