Trial reportScientific reports2025
Influence of internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane removal: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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.
- Application of digital surgery in ophthalmology: intraoperative display of pre-operative enface OCT and ERM peeling unveiling the role of ERM adherence.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In epiretinal membrane (ERM) surgery, the influence of internal limiting membrane (ILM) integrity after ERM removal is underexplored. This study investigated outcomes of idiopathic ERM surgery based on ILM condition following ERM removal and intentional peeling of residual ILM. In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 102 patients underwent vitrectomy for idiopathic ERM. After ERM removal, ILM status was evaluated using indocyanine green staining. Patients with mostly removed ILM were allocated to group 1 (involuntary peeling), whereas those with partially removed or intact ILM were randomized 1:1 to active peeling (group 2) or non-peeling of residual ILM (group 3). Recurrence of ERM during 12-month follow-up occurred only in group 3 (36.1%), particularly when residual ILM involved the fovea. Best-corrected visual acuity, metamorphopsia, and aniseikonia did not differ among groups; however, group 3 showed significantly lower central macular thickness at all follow-ups (p < 0.05) and better macular contour restoration according to retinal thickness profiles. In patients whose residual ILM involved the fovea, non-peeling resulted in less severe vertical metamorphopsia when ERM did not recur. These findings suggest that residual ILM peeling decisions during ERM surgery should consider both anatomical and functional outcomes, as non-peeling favoring anatomical macular recovery but increasing recurrence risk.
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.