ReviewJournal of ophthalmology2026
The Visual Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Vitrectomy and Membrane Peeling for Primary Idiopathic Epiretinal Membranes (iERMs): A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Primary idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) is a common finding in people aged 50 years or over. It is treated with vitrectomy. There are no definite criteria for when to conduct surgery, and outcomes are variable. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vitrectomy surgery for iERM. Material and Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. Prospective cohort studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and health economics studies published from 2000 to May 2024 were included. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline. Summarising effect estimates were used to synthesise results. Results: Twelve included studies (11 case series and 1 RCT) met the eligibility criteria. The length of the follow-up ranged from 1 week to 2 years after surgery. The majority of studies were carried out in Asia. Vitrectomy showed improvement in BCVA from baseline. The studies exhibited a wide range in the mean change of BCVA, with the greatest median change 12 months after surgery (0.29, IQR: 0.065). The RCT showed no significant difference between surgery and watchful waiting. Three studies used the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) as their only patient-reported outcome to measure vision-related quality of life for iERM. The composite scores of NEI-VFQ-25 were significantly improved at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Vitrectomy surgery was found to be cost-effective in one included study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4680 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: Vitrectomy surgery demonstrated improvement in BCVA from baseline, but the RCT with a watchful waiting group showed no significant difference. Vitrectomy surgery was cost-effective. An RCT comparing iERM vitrectomy surgery and either delayed surgery or no surgery, and a health economics evaluation of the intervention are needed to confirm the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iERM vitrectomy surgery.
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.