Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401800›Full record

SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2016

Systematic literature review of treatments for management of complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion.

Steven E Bradshaw, Smeet Gala, Merena Nanavaty, Anshul Shah, Mkaya Mwamburi, Panos Kefalas

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Topical Review: Impact of Central Vision Loss on Navigation and Obstacle Avoidance while Walking.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Eye Opener in Stroke.Stroke · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven E BradshawValid Insight®, Kemp House, 152 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. sbradshaw@validinsight.com.
Smeet GalaValid Insight®, Kemp House, 152 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
Merena NanavatyMarket Access Solutions, 575 State Route 28, Raritan, NJ, 08869, USA.
Anshul ShahMarket Access Solutions, 575 State Route 28, Raritan, NJ, 08869, USA.
Mkaya MwamburiMarket Access Solutions, 575 State Route 28, Raritan, NJ, 08869, USA.
Panos KefalasCell Therapy Catapult, 12th Floor Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Valid International (United Kingdom) · GBGuy's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo understand the clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for managing complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (iCRVO).

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review by searching multiple databases and ophthalmology conferences from 2004 to 2015. Studies published in English language and populations of age ≥45 years were included. For clinical endpoints, we defined eligibility criteria as randomized controlled trials, prospective before-and-after study designs, and non-randomized studies reporting on treatments in patients with iCRVO. For economic endpoints, all types of study design except cost-of-illness studies were included. We evaluated the definitions of ischemia, clinical and economic endpoints, and rate of development of complications. Risk of bias was assessed for clinical studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

resultsA total of 20 studies (1338 patients) were included. Treatments included anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs), steroids, and procedures primarily targeting macular edema and neovascularization. Ischemia was not defined consistently in the included studies. The level of evidence was mostly low. Most treatments did not improve visual acuity significantly. Development of treatment complications ranged from 11 to 57 %. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-VEGFs and steroids were below the accepted threshold of GB£30,000, but considering such treatments only ameliorate disease symptoms they seem relatively expensive.

conclusionsThere is a lack of evidence for any intervention being effective in iCRVO, especially in the prevention of neovascularisation. iCRVO poses a significant clinical and economic burden. There is a need to standardize the definition of ischemia, and for innovative treatments which can significantly improve visual outcomes and prevent neovascular complications.

Indexed as

Ophthalmologic Surgical ProceduresAngiogenesis InhibitorsGlaucomaHumansMacular EdemaNeovascularization, PathologicRetinal DiseasesRetinal Vein OcclusionSteroidsAngiogenesis InhibitorsSteroids

Identifiers

PMID27401800
PMCPMC4940864
OpenAlexW2461323607

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.