ArticlePloS one2024
The prone position in COVID-19 impacts the thickness of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layers and macular ganglion cell layers.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prone position reduces mortality in severe cases of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, visual loss and changes to the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (p-RNFL) and the macular ganglion cell layer and inner plexiform layer (m-GCIPL) have occurred in patients undergoing surgery in the prone position. Moreover, COVID-19-related eye problems have been reported. This study compared the p-RNFL and m-GCIPL thicknesses of COVID-19 patients who were placed in the prone position with patients who were not. This prospective longitudinal and case-control study investigated 15 COVID-19 patients placed in the prone position (the "Prone Group"), 23 COVID-19 patients not in the prone position (the "Non-Prone Group"), and 23 healthy, non-COVID individuals without ocular disease or systemic conditions (the "Control Group"). The p-RNFL and m-GCIPL thicknesses of the COVID-19 patients were measured at 1, 3, and 6 months and compared within and between groups. The result showed that the Prone and Non-Prone Groups had no significant differences in their p-RNFL thicknesses at the 3 follow-ups. However, the m-GCIPL analysis revealed significant differences in the inferior sector of the Non-Prone Group between months 1 and 3 (mean difference, 0.74 μm; P = 0.009). The p-RNFL analysis showed a significantly greater thickness at 6 months for the superior sector of the Non-Prone Group (131.61 ± 12.08 μm) than for the Prone Group (118.87 ± 18.21 μm; P = 0.039). The m-GCIPL analysis revealed that the inferior sector was significantly thinner in the Non-Prone Group than in the Control Group (at 1 month 80.57 ± 4.60 versus 83.87 ± 5.43 μm; P = 0.031 and at 6 months 80.48 ± 3.96 versus 83.87 ± 5.43 μm; P = 0.044). In conclusion, the prone position in COVID-19 patients can lead to early loss of p-RNFL thickness due to rising intraocular pressure, which is independent of the timing of prone positioning. Consequently, there is no increase in COVID-19 patients' morbidity burden.
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.