Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Intravitreal Ranibizumab versus Vitreous Lavage for Postoperative Vitreous Hemorrhage in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative vitreous hemorrhage (POVH) after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a common complication that delays visual recovery. While vitreous lavage (VL) mechanically clears hemorrhages, intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) targets VEGF-mediated neovascularization. We compared the efficacy and safety of IVR and VL for the management of POVH. Objective: To compare the visual outcomes, hemorrhage clearance efficiency, and complications between IVR and VL over a 24-week follow-up period. Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 26 patients with POVH for PDR were allocated to the VL (n=12) or IVR (n=14) groups. Follow-up evaluations at 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, and monthly for up to 6 months included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and complications. Novel metrics that included Visual Acuity Recovery Rate (VARR), Time to 1.0 logMAR-Equivalent Improvement (T1EI), and time to peak BCVA (T Results: At 24 weeks, BCVA improvement was comparable between groups (VL: 0.30 LogMAR vs IVR: 0.22 LogMAR, p=0.47). VL achieved immediate BCVA gains in one day (1.99 vs 0.91 LogMAR, p<0.01), whereas IVR demonstrated progressive improvement after 2 weeks. VARR was higher in VL at 1 day (0.76 vs 0.25, p<0.001) and 2 weeks (0.84 vs 0.61, p=0.06) but converged by 24 weeks (p=0.86). The complication rates (recurrent hemorrhage and neovascular glaucoma) were similar (p>0.05). Conclusion: VL and IVR were both associated with improved visual outcomes in patients with POVH throughout the 24-week follow-up period. The VL group achieved immediate BCVA improvement, and IVR showed a progressive improvement pattern. The VL group showed superior short-term efficiency. IVR showed a trend towards sustained recovery over the 24-week study period. In our study, IVR showed a trend of higher recovery efficiency within the follow-up timeframe. The advert treatment outcomes after the two treatments did not significantly differ. Thus, treatment selection should balance the urgency of visual rehabilitation and patient-specific factors.
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.