ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing postoperative outcomes of three-dimensional versus traditional microscopic vitrectomy and subretinal rt-PA injection for submacular hemorrhage.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the postoperative outcomes of par plana vitrectomy (PPV) with subretinal recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) injection for submacular hemorrhage (SMH), utilizing three-dimensional (3D) heads-up or traditional microscopic (TM) visualization systems. Patients who were diagnosed with SMH and received PPV and subretinal rt-PA injection were enrolled in the retrospective cohort study. Patients were categorized to the 3D group and the TM group according to the visualization systems used in surgery. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), lesion parameters and the occurrence rate of postoperative adverse events were longitudinally recorded and compared. The 3D group (n = 19) and the TM group (n = 20) exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (64.10%) was the leading cause of SMH. At the last visit, the enhancement of BCVA from baseline was 0.41 (95%CI 0.14-0.67) LogMAR in the 3D group and 0.30 (95%CI 0-0.59) LogMAR in the TM group, respectively (P = 0.555). SMH lesion parameters, including the height, greatest linear dimension and area, along with central retinal thickness, changed similarly during follow-up. Major adverse events, including photoreceptor/retinal pigment epithelial atrophy (92.31%), epiretinal membrane (41.03%), and recurrent SMH (30.77%), also occurred similarly at each follow-up in the two groups. The two visualization systems showed comparable postoperative efficacies and safety profiles in assisting PPV and subretinal rt-PA injection for SMH 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.