SynthesisEye (London, England)2025
Noncryopexy versus cryopexy treatment during scleral buckling: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on: 'Noncryopexy versus cryopexy treatment during scleral buckling: a systematic review and meta-analysis'.Eye (London, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the differences in surgical outcomes between scleral buckling (SB) with noncryopexy and cryopexy methods.
methodsWe systematically searched the Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from their inception until January 1, 2024. A random-effects model was applied, and outcomes are presented as risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.
resultsWe included seven RCTs involving a total of 1103 patients. The meta-analysis revealed comparable retinal reattachment rates between noncryopexy and cryopexy methods (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.96-1.05). Our subgroup analysis revealed similar results between nonretinopexy and laser retinopexy subgroups. Moreover, postoperative visual acuity (VA) and complication rates were comparable between noncryopexy and cryopexy methods (proportion of eyes with postoperative VA of 20/40 or better: RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.83-1.85; macular pucker: RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.53-2.21; cystoid macular oedema: RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.79-1.30; and subretinal pigmentary migration: RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.08-1.38). However, the certainty of evidence for these outcomes was low to very low, indicating the need for cautious interpretation of these findings.
conclusionsSimilar surgical outcomes were noted between noncryopexy and cryopexy methods in SB, suggesting that both methods are effective in repairing rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. However, future studies on a larger scale and with longer follow-ups may be necessary to detect late redetachment and complications.
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.