Evidence mapPaperPMID 26915035Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity2016

Future opportunities in diabetic retinopathy research.

Thomas W Gardner, Emily Y Chew

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas W GardneraDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, WK Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MichiganbNational Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Emily Y Chew
National Eye Institute · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Pilot and Feasibility ProgramP30DK092926 · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · 2025 to 2025
$779k
Age-Related Eye Disease Follow-up Study (AREDS) Follow-up StudyZIAEY000489 · NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE · 2025 to 2025
$36k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY020582NEI NIH HHS R01EY20582NIDDK NIH HHS DP3 DK094292NIDDK NIH HHS DP3DK094292NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe risk of vision loss from diabetic retinopathy has fallen dramatically over the past 3 decades with improvements in diabetes and blood pressure treatments, and with advances in laser surgery and intraocular drug delivery. Nevertheless, diabetes continues to be a major cause of blindness. This study summarizes the state of the art in diabetic retinopathy research and provides a perspective on opportunities for future investigations. RECENT

findingsNew insights into the pathophysiology of diabetes and diabetic retinopathy will improve metabolic control. Structure-function analyses are revealing new details of diabetic retinopathy. Intraocular drug therapy provides improved visual outcomes. Together these steps will yield better means to detect and quantify vision loss, and to develop patient-specific treatments to preserve vision for persons with diabetes. SUMMARY: Retinopathy is one of the most successfully treated complications of diabetes and will continue to be an important area of research for patients and their families.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyAdministration, OphthalmicAngiogenesis InhibitorsAnimalsBiomedical ResearchDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalForecastingHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyPredictive Value of TestsAngiogenesis Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID26915035
PMCPMC4959271
OpenAlexW2431337895

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.