ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of the efficacy of subthreshold micropulse laser versus intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objective: To compare the therapeutic ability between 577-nm subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) and intravitreal anti-VEGF injection (IVA) in the treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSCR). Methods: The medical records of 50 cCSCR patients (50 eyes) who underwent SML (30 eyes) or IVA injection (20 eyes) were reviewed in this retrospective cohort study. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), subretinal fluid (SRF), and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment were extracted and compared between the two groups. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including age, sex, leakage pattern on fluorescein angiography (FA), BCVA, CRT, SRF, and SFCT, were comparable between the two groups (all Conclusion: Both SML and anti-VEGF has been confirmed effective in improving visual acuity and achieving anatomical recovery in patients with cCSCR. At 6 months, IVA was associated with greater reduction in SFCT, whereas SML achieved superior SRF resolution. These findings support individualized treatment selection based on disease characteristics and underlying pathophysiology.
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.