Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41601793›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025

The efficacy and safety of intraocular anti-VEGF injections versus anti-VEGF combined with steroids or steroid monotherapy for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Han Cai, Miao Tian, Zhilong Huang, Binglong Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Han CaiOphthalmology Centre, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Miao TianOphthalmology Centre, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Zhilong HuangGuangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Binglong WangSchool of Health Policy and Management Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of intraocular injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monotherapy versus steroid monotherapy or anti-VEGF combined with steroids for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Materials and methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to 10 August 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF or steroid monotherapy with their combination. Results: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Of these, 13 trials (mean difference, -43.21, 95% CI, -76.82 to -9.60, Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that monotherapy with anti-VEGF drugs is more effective than the other two treatment methods in reducing CMT in patients with retinal vein occlusion. Regarding the ETDRS scores, anti-VEGF monotherapy was better than the other two treatments. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251146756, CRD420251146756.

Indexed as

macular edemameta-analysisrandomized controlled clinical trialsretinal vein occlusionsteroidsvascular endothelial growth factor

Identifiers

PMID41601793
PMCPMC12832253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.