ReviewCureus2024
Autologous Serum for the Treatment of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of autologous human serum as an adjuvant agent in pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for macular holes (MH). Thus, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to August 20th, 2023. The inclusion criteria targeted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs that compared the use of autologous serum in vitrectomy for MH with the same procedure without the serum. The outcomes were MH closure rates and postoperative complications such as retinal detachment and cataracts. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Review Manager 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used for statistical analysis. Four studies, comprising two RCTs and two non-randomized cohort studies with 373 eyes of 372 patients, were included. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in MH closure rates (OR 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.43; P=0.62) and no difference concerning the incidence of adverse events (OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.30-3.09; P=0.96). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis excluding the study by Lauritzen et al. revealed a significant difference in anatomical closure, favoring the serum arm, and demonstrated a reduction in the level of heterogeneity. Our meta-analysis demonstrated no difference between groups in the pooled analysis of all studies. However, considering the quality assessment of one of the included studies, and observing the divergent result in sensitivity analysis following its exclusion, there are indications that might suggest the superiority of the serum in terms of the analyzed endpoints. This finding highlights the existing research gaps and the imperative need for additional high-quality randomized trials to further investigate this treatment.
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.