SynthesisEye (London, England)2025
Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and management of diabetic macular oedema: a systematic review.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to anti-VEGF injections for diabetic macular edema among patients on chronic exogenous insulin therapy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Aflibercept and Brolucizumab in Diabetic Macular Edema: A Focused Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Considerations.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Real-World Outcomes of Intraoperative Intravitreal Triamcinolone at Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery in Eyes with a History of Diabetic Macular Edema.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo assess geographically global clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diabetic macular oedema (DMO) management.
methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) of CPGs for DMO management was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases, Guideline Central, Health Technology Assessment bodies, professional ophthalmology associations, and backwards citation tracking. CPGs published between January 2010-October 2023 were included and independently assessed by four reviewers and one adjudicator using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. CPGs were qualitatively assessed for anatomical measurement (optical coherence tomography [OCT]) and visual acuity (VA) recommendations. PROSPERO identification: CRD42023473223.
results14/147 identified CPGs were included. Overall AGREE II scores were 49-91 (mean [SD] = 67 [11]). Strongest domains were Scope and Purpose (85 [10.9]), Clarity of Presentation (87 [18.7]), and Editorial Independence (91 [13.7]). Stakeholder Involvement (57 [8.3]), Applicability (54 [19.4]), and Rigor of Development (41 [19.0]) scored lowest. 13/14 CPGs were "Recommended" or "Recommended with Modifications". All CPGs recommended OCT for initial diagnosis. 3/14 CPGs did not recommend VA or considered VA optional. For initial disease management, 11/14 CPGs recommended OCT. One considered OCT optional. VA was recommended by 9/14 CPGs for initial management. All CPGs recommended using VA and OCT for disease monitoring while on anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. 12/14 CPGs recommended using OCT to measure anti-VEGF response to adjust treatment interval.
conclusionCPGs were aligned regarding the importance of OCT in DMO management. More rigorous methods, applicability in resource-constrained systems, and patient perspectives will improve CPG trustworthiness and transparency.
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.