ArticleAdvances in ophthalmology practice and research
A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in diabetic macular edema.
Article in Advances in ophthalmology practice and research. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), steroid, and laser on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and treatment frequency in patients with diabetic macular edema. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to August 2024. Mean change from baseline in BCVA (mcBCVA), mean change from baseline in CRT (mcCRT), and treatment frequency were collected using PRISMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was done on 20 studies using Review Manager 5.4.1. Results: mcBCVA (mean difference (MD) = 0.14 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05 to 0.23, Conclusions: These data suggest anti-VEGF treatment is more effective than laser at improving BCVA and CRT, whereas steroid treatment is more effective than anti-VEGF at improving CRT outcomes. Steroid therapy, while not currently allotted a first-line therapy in the United States, may have a more significant role in reducing treatment burden and improving macular morphology.
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.