ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Macular serpiginous choroiditis versus macular serpiginous-like choroiditis: clinical features, outcomes and prognosis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and prognostic factors of macular serpiginous choroiditis (SC) and macular serpiginous-like choroiditis (SLC).
methodsThis retrospective multicentre study included 30 eyes of 25 patients with macular SC or SLC. All patients underwent detailed ophthalmic evaluation, including OCT, fundus autofluorescence (FAF), and fluorescein angiography. Atrophic and hyperautofluorescent FAF areas were quantitatively assessed using ImageJ.
resultsOf the 30 eyes, 16 had macular SC and 14 had macular SLC. Atrophic area increased significantly in both groups but was greater in SC (2.8 ± 1.9 to 22.6 ± 8.3 mm²) than in SLC (4.1 ± 3.6 to 16.4 ± 7.0 mm²) (P < 0.001). Macular neovascularisation occurred more frequently in SC (43.7%) than SLC (7.1%) (P = 0.024). Visual outcomes were poorer in SC, with 31.2% achieving final visual acuity ≤0.1 logMAR, compared to 71.4% in SLC (P = 0. 028). All SC cases required systemic immunosuppression, versus 50% in SLC (P = 0.002), though treatment duration was longer in SLC (P = 0.007).
conclusionMacular SC exhibits more aggressive progression and worse visual prognosis than SLC. However, SLC requires prolonged immunosuppression to manage chronic inflammation.
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.