SynthesisRetina (Philadelphia, Pa.)2025
SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF LAMELLAR MACULAR HOLE EYES WITH OR WITHOUT PRESERVATION OF LAMELLAR HOLE-ASSOCIATED EPIRETINAL PROLIFERATION TECHNIQUE: A Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 evaluate sparing or embedding technique for lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation and in comparison with traditional internal limiting membrane and epiretinal membrane peeling in lamellar macular holes.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CNKI, Wan Fang, and VIP Databases (PROSPERO number CRD42024466392) were searched. Trials of various lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation removal or preservation techniques in lamellar macular holes were included (case reports of only 1 case excluded). Postoperative changes in best-corrected visual acuity were calculated. Central retinal thickness and number of patients with new postoperative intact ellipsoid zones were secondary outcomes.
resultsEight studies were eligible and four compared with peeling groups. Preservation groups showed a significant visual improvement operatively (mean difference = -0.25 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = -0.30 to -0.21; P < 0.00001) and improved compared with peeling groups (mean difference = -0.19 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = -0.29 to -0.1; P < 0.0001). In addition, the number of patients with intact ellipsoid zones increased in the preserving groups (odd ratio = 2.55; 95% confidence interval = 1.48-4.38; P = 0.0007) and also increased compared with peeling groups (odd ratio =10.80; 95% confidence interval = 1.86-62.83; P = 0.008).
conclusionBased on the current evidence, lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation sparing or embedding technique has favorable postoperative outcomes compared with peeling technique for lamellar macular holes.
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.