ArticlePloS one2024
Surgical managements for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neuroprotective Agents for Photoreceptor Rescue Following Experimental Retinal Detachment in Rodents: A Systematic Review.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common ophthalmic emergency threatening vision, with an incidence ranging from 6.3 to 17.9 per 100,000 people per year. However, optimal surgical management of RRD remains controversial. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of different surgical options in patients with RRD.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception to 24th September 2023. Frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model was used to synthesize data. The risk of bias for the included RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. And we performed the network meta-analysis utilizing R 4.1.3 software and Stata 16SE.
resultsA total of 19 RCTs enrolled 2589 eyes were included. With high-to-very low certainty of evidence, compared with pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckling (SB) (odd ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.30; 0.91]), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI [1.32; 4.20]), PPV+SB (OR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.32; 5.09]) and PPV combined with phacomulsification (PCV) (OR = 7.72, 95% CI [1.07; 55.87]) were more effect in improving primary reattachment rate; for postoperative 6-month vision, SB was superior to PPV+SB (mean difference (MD) = 0.14, 95% CI [0.01; 0.27]). When compared with SB, PPV (OR = 5.27, 95% CI [3.13; 8.86]) and PPV+SB (OR = 10.12, 95% CI [4.31; 23.77]) shows a higher incidence of postoperative cataract progression. Compared to PR, the same is true for PPV (OR = 7.51, 95% CI [3.33; 16.91]) and PPV+SB (OR = 14.43, 95% CI [4.97; 41.93]).
conclusionsPR appears to be associated with a lower rate of primary reattachment rate and postoperative cataract progression. In view of the small sample sizes of the included studies and the low certainty of evidence, these findings must be interpreted with caution. A large number of high-quality trials should be conducted to verify the effects of different surgical techniques in the future.
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.