ReviewOphthalmology science
Clinical Outcomes of Therapeutic Interventions for Autoimmune Retinopathy: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.
Review in Ophthalmology science. 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.
- Paraneoplastic syndromes and the retina.Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- 10-year experience in the use of Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Autoimmune Retinopathy.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of cancer-induced neurophysiological dysfunction and therapeutic strategies.Discover oncology · 2025Review
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
Topic: Autoimmune retinopathy (AIR) is a group of rare inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppression; however, there is no treatment consensus. This meta-analysis and review aims to investigate treatment effectiveness in slowing AIR progression. Clinical Relevance: Autoimmune retinopathy is a group of diseases characterized by progressive vision loss that is both difficult to diagnose and treat. While there is some consensus regarding diagnostic criteria, evidence-based treatment consensus remains poorly understood. Current first-line treatment is systemic steroids and conventional steroid-sparing agents. However, patients often experience treatment failure and systemic adverse effects with these medications. Understanding the effect of medications on slowing multiple visual outcomes in AIR can help to guide future treatment protocols. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to November 2023. Included studies treated patients with AIR with systemic, local, and biologic therapy and reported visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF), cystoid macular edema (CME), electroretinogram, central retinal thickness (CRT), and/or ellipsoid zone (EZ) loss. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data for meta-analysis were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Analysis of 40 case reports demonstrated that treatment type significantly affects the improvement of VA in patients with nonparaneoplastic retinopathy. Meta-analysis of 12 studies demonstrated that any treatment decreases the risk of progression of all 6 outcomes. Systemic therapy slows VA loss (risk ratio [RR] = 0.04, 95% confidence interval [0.00, 0.91], Conclusion: Systemic therapy significantly reduces the risk of progressive visual loss. Local therapy significantly decreases the risk of both progressive visual loss and retinal morphology loss, and therefore may offer precise targeting of the retina. Biologics significantly reduce both functional and morphological retinal changes. Immunosuppressive therapy may slow AIR progression; however, additional research is needed to assess long-term outcomes. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.