ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of topical nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3% for the treatment of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema following cataract surgery.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
purposeTo compare the effectiveness of topical nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3% in the management of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) following cataract surgery.
methodsIn this retrospective comparative study, patients with PCME after cataract surgery and a follow-up of at least three months were included. Patients were assigned to two groups according to the topical nepafenac treatment initiated after PCME diagnosis: 0.1% (Group-1) or 0.3% nepafenac (Group-2). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), macular and choroidal parameters assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) were evaluated at diagnosis and during follow-up and were compared between the groups.
resultsThe study included 97 eyes from 78 patients, with a mean age of 71.3 ± 7.1 years. Baseline demographic characteristics and surgical parameters were comparable between the groups. BCVA, macular and choroidal parameters improved in both groups during follow-up. At the third month, Group-1 showed significantly better mean BCVA (0.056 ± 0.082 vs. 0.122 ± 0.135, p = 0.028). At the first month, mean central foveal subfield thickness was significantly thinner in Group-1 (348.0 ± 96.5 vs. 387.9 ± 130.7, p = 0.047). Mean choroidal vascular index (CVI) increased during follow-up in both groups, with a greater increase observed in Group-2 at the first month (0.5 ± 2.7 vs. 2.1 ± 3.7, p = 0.024). Complete anatomical response at the first month was observed more often in Group-1 (60.0% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.033).
conclusionTopical nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3% were both associated with improvement in PCME. Group-1 showed better early anatomical and later visual outcomes, whereas Group-2 showed a greater early CVI increase. However, these findings do not establish the superiority of either regimen.
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.