ReviewTzu chi medical journal
Evaluating the efficacy of pars plana vitrectomy in the management of endophthalmitis after following the endophthalmitis vitrectomy study: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Tzu chi medical journal. 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.
- Postoperative endophthalmitis treatment with antibiotics associated or not with pars plana vitrectomy: a randomized clinical trial.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
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
Endophthalmitis is a devastating eye complication that requires prompt and effective treatment. A pivotal study in the field of endophthalmitis treatment is the endophthalmitis vitrectomy study (EVS), conducted over a decade ago. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) as a treatment option for endophthalmitis following the EVS study. We conducted a comprehensive search across three databases: PubMed, EBSCO host, and ProQuest. Reference lists of published articles were searched. Our study encompassed research conducted between January 2013 and January 2023 to ensure the most up-to-date findings. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logMar, causative agents, and predicting factors for visual outcome were evaluated. Nine studies involving 351 eyes were included in the study; however, only eight were included in the meta-analysis. We observed a significant BCVA improvement compared to baseline at 1 month, >1-3 months, >3-6 months, and ≥12-month follow-up, with mean differences of 1.06 (
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.