SynthesisBMJ open2026
Advanced therapeutic approaches for inherited retinal diseases: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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.
- New Advances and Perspectives in Ophthalmology: Progress and Modern Challenges Toward Personalized Eye Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of advanced therapeutic approaches for inherited retinal disease (IRD) using evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
designUmbrella review. DATA SOURCES: We searched for Epistemonikos, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception to November 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This included English-language systematic review and meta-analysis assessing advanced therapies in patients with IRD (including congenital retinal dystrophies, retinal dystrophies, retinitis pigmentosa (RP), Stargardt disease, X linked RP, achromatopsia, cone-rod dystrophy, choroideraemia and X linked retinoschisis). Reviews that did not meet the methodological quality threshold were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Findings were synthesised narratively due to the substantial overlap of primary studies.
resultSix systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2020 onwards were included, comprising between 6 and 21 primary studies per review. The therapies evaluated included gene therapy, cell-based therapy and stem cell-based interventions. Reported effect estimates showed modest to clinically meaningful improvements in best-corrected visual acuity and retinal structural outcomes in selected IRD subtypes, although effect sizes varied widely across interventions and conditions. The GRADE certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to low, reflecting bias, imprecision and heterogeneity risks. Substantial overlap of primary studies was observed (corrected covered area = 28.9%), precluding quantitative pooling across reviews.
conclusionThe findings suggest notable improvements in visual acuity, retinal structure and other critical outcomes, with therapies such as cell therapy, gene therapy and stem cell therapy showing promising results in enhancing treatment efficacy. Although there are examples of successes with supportive evidence, the overall evidence is not sufficiently strong to make general recommendations, as studies still need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Further high-quality, large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed to better confirm their efficacy and safety.
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.