ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
The efficacy and safety of oral and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinitis pigmentosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCarbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs) are commonly used to treat macular edema (ME) secondary to retinitis pigmentosa (RP). This meta-analysis aims to better understand the efficacy of topical or oral CAIs therapy and to summarize the rates of improvement and recurrence of ME, as well as adverse events.
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases with no language filters applied. Eligible studies were those investigating topical or oral CAIs for the treatment of ME secondary to RP. Central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were extracted as the primary outcome measures for comprehensive analysis.
resultsThis meta-analysis identified a total of 16 eligible studies, encompassing 267 patients (487 eyes). Moderate certainty evidence from RCTs demonstrated that oral CAIs significantly improved BCVA, whereas topical CAIs showed no statistically significant effect. Low to moderate certainty evidence from non-RCTs revealed that both oral and topical CAIs significantly improved CMT (both P < 0.001).
conclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that oral CAI therapy significantly reduces CMT and improves BCVA in patients with RP, whereas the effect of topical CAIs on BCVA remains uncertain. A large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trial would be ideal to further investigate the differences in clinical efficacy and adverse events between oral and topical CAIs in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573804What 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.