ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Comparative efficacy of conservative, hyperbaric oxygen, and endovascular retinal surgery approaches in central retinal artery occlusion.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. 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.
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen in Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis in the Treatment of Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Retinal ischemia due to different stages of atherosclerosis - insights from a retrospective study on central retinal artery occlusion.Neurological research and practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess and compare the efficacy of three treatment modalities for central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO): conservative therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), and endovascular retinal surgery (ERS). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the cases of CRAO patients treated at the Toyama University Hospital. Their age range was 44-87 years; a balanced gender distribution was observed. The conservative therapy group included 13 eyes (6 males, 7 females, average age 74 years). HBOT group: 11 eyes from 10 patients (5 males, 5 females, average age 70 years). ERS group: 10 eyes (7 males, 3 females, average age 74 years). The treatments were as follows. Conservative group: ocular massage and sublingual nitroglycerin. HBOT: 60-min sessions at 2 atmospheres. ERS: vitrectomy followed by tissue plasminogen activator injection using a 47-ga. microneedle. Visual acuity was assessed using logMAR units, with statistical analyses by paired t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction.
resultsThe conservative group showed a slight visual acuity change from 1.96 ± 0.53 to 1.88 ± 0.56 (p = 0.56). The HBOT group exhibited a significant improvement from 1.79 ± 0.80 to 1.28 ± 0.81 (p = 0.007). The ERS group displayed the most substantial improvement, with scores moving from 1.98 ± 0.36 to 0.68 ± 0.49 (p = 0.0000413). The ERS group's outcomes were significantly superior to those of the other groups.
conclusionThese results suggest that while conservative treatment may not be sufficient, both HBOT and endovascular retinal surgery show promise, with the latter demonstrating the most significant improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39521754What 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.