ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Efficacy and safety of multiple fluocinolone acetonide implants in diabetic macular oedema: comparison between first and second intravitreal injections.
Article 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.
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Ocular Hypertension Following Fluocinolone Acetonide (IluvienOphthalmology and therapy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety between a first and a second injection of fluocinolone acetonide implants (FAc-I) in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO).
methodsThis retrospective, multicentre cohort study included eyes with chronic DMO that received two consecutive FAc-I injections. We analysed visual and anatomical outcomes, additional DMO treatments, and intraocular pressure (IOP)-related adverse events.
resultsWe included 61 eyes from 44 patients. Stable or improved BCVA was observed in 100% of eyes after the first injection and in 93% after the second, demonstrating statistical equivalence within a ±15% margin (p = 0.005). Statistical equivalence was also found for the lowest CRT (±10% margin, p < 0.001) and for the proportion of eyes with ≥20% CRT decrease (±20% margin, p = 0.026). The proportion of patients requiring additional treatments during the first year was equivalent between injections (p = 0.036), with a therapeutic burden reduction of 63% and 59%, respectively. Regarding peak IOP, equivalence was observed between the two injections (±5 mmHg margin, p < 0.001). The incidence of OHT was numerically higher after the second injection (19.7% vs 11.5%, p = 0.302), but this difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionMultiple FAc-I injections are a safe and effective treatment option for chronic DMO in real life. The second injection maintained similar functional and anatomical outcomes to the first, supporting the sustainability and repeatability of the treatment.
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.