ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Persistence and recurrence after removal of idiopathic epiretinal membrane.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Real-time OCT-guided strategies for optimization of precision and safety in vitreoretinal surgery].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Current Topics in OCT Applications in Vitreoretinal Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nonvitrectomizing vitreous surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the incidence of persistence and recurrence after the peeling of idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) and to describe its clinical features.
methodsThis retrospective study included 666 eyes (645 patients) that underwent macular surgery for ERM removal. Optical coherence tomographic (OCT) images taken within three months after surgery and at the following visits, clinical parameters and surgery related factors were analysed to investigate the incidence and associated factors of ERM persistence and recurrence. Postoperative ERM types were categorised depending on the size ( < 100 µm, ≥100 µm) and the location (foveal, parafoveal, outside the parafovea)
resultsThe mean follow-up time was 29.4 months. ERM persistence (examination within 3 months) was found in 29.6% of all eyes. Only 1.9% of the eyes presented foveal ERM persistence. Foveal recurrence, defined as reappearance or growth of persistent ERM covering the fovea, was found in 8.2%. In 84.4% of eyes with foveal ERM recurrence, postoperative persistence of ERM of varying severity were identified. None of the pre-operative or surgery related factors were found significantly associated with ERM recurrence. Persistent ERM within the parafovea was the most significant risk factor for foveal ERM recurrence.
conclusionRecurrence of ERM is generally preceded by the persistence of ERM fragments found in the early postoperative period. Growth of ERM persistence from the parafoveal region was often the origin of foveal ERM recurrence. Insufficient peeling seems to be the most significant predisposing factor for foveal ERM recurrence.
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.