SynthesisActa ophthalmologica2026
Interventions for submacular haemorrhage: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of controversies-On behalf of the Spanish Vitreo-Retinal Society (SERV).
Synthesis in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review aims to evaluate and synthesize the existing literature on the interventions used for submacular haemorrhage (SMH), highlighting the controversies and differences in clinical practice.
methodA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, to identify studies on SMH treatment. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case series that focused on different therapeutic interventions. Data on functional outcomes, efficacy and safety of the interventions were extracted and analysed.
resultsThe review included 150 studies, of which 38 were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) Included 26 studies, 20 interventions and 2125 eyes. Heterogeneity was moderate (I
conclusionsThere is no consensus on a standard evidence-based treatment for SMH. Minimally invasive strategies are promising, but factors such as timing, lesion size and anti-VEGF use remain critical. Further large-scale randomised trials are needed to define optimal management.
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.