SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Selective and nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCentral serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) is a common retinal disorder characterized by serous retinal detachment and choroidal abnormalities. While various treatment modalities exist, their potential adverse effects have prompted interest in alternative therapies. Although mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been explored as a potential therapy, previous studies have yielded conflicting results, and prior meta-analyses have not distinguished between the effects of selective and nonselective MRAs. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of selective (eplerenone) and nonselective (spironolactone) MRAs for treating CSCR.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus Database, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of MRAs with placebo or between different MRAs in CSCR treatment. Efficacy was evaluated using best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and subretinal fluid (SRF) height, and clinical data on adverse effects were also collected. The Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB2) was used for quality assessment. Results were synthesized through a meta-analysis to calculate the weighted mean difference (MD) using a random-effects model. Additionally, a network meta-analysis was performed to incorporate all the evidence.
resultsSeven RCTs, involving 283 participants, were included in the analysis. Spironolactone demonstrated a superior effect over placebo in improving BCVA (MD: − 0.14; 95% CI: − 0.25, − 0.04; P = 0.02, I2 = 68%) and reducing SRF height (MD: − 97.42; 95% CI: − 148.19, − 46.66; P = 0.94, I2 = 0%). Eplerenone exhibited a superior effect over placebo in improving BCVA (MD: − 0.0.5; 95% CI: − 0.09, − 0.01; P = 0.41, I2 = 0%) but had no significant impact on SRF height (MD: − 64.80; 95% CI: − 180.40, 50.80; P = 0.0008, I2 = 82%). Synthesizing them all indicated that spironolactone was superior to eplerenone in improving BCVA (MD: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.023, 0.23), though no significant difference was observed on SRF height (MD: − 12; 95% CI: − 170, 150).
conclusionsSpironolactone was effective in treating CSCR; superior to eplerenone especially in improving BCVA. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024601746) prior to commencement.
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.