ArticleScientific reports2019
Should the outcome of focal photocoagulation for center-sparing diabetic macular edema require expanding the definition of center involvement?
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigated direct photocoagulation with a 30-ms short-pulse laser for treating microaneurysms in diabetic macular edema exhibits a high closure rate.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Microperimetric analysis of diabetic macular edema after navigated direct photocoagulation with short-pulse laser for microaneurysms.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photocoagulation may still be a therapeutic choice for center-sparing diabetic macular edema. We compared the visual evolution after photocoagulation, in eyes with focal diabetic macular edema, stratified per the location of thickening with optical coherence tomography. We evaluated people with type 2 diabetes and focal diabetic macular edema, before and three weeks after focal photocoagulation. We divided the sample by edema location: central (group1); paracentral (group 2) and pericentral (group 3) and compared the proportions of eyes with baseline visual impairment, visual improvement, and visual deterioration between groups; central edema was evaluated with logistic regression, as an explaining variable of baseline visual impairment and visual improvement. The study included 160 eyes: 77 in group 1, 20 in group 2, 63 in group 3; baseline visual impairment was more frequent in groups 1 and 2 (52.6%) than in group 3 (28.6%, p = 0.002, OR 2.77) and as common in groups 1 (51.9%) and 2 (55.0%, p = 0.8). The proportions of visual improvement and visual deterioration did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The outcome after focal photocoagulation was similar in paracentral (considered center-sparing) and central macular edema; the definition of center involvement, which needs intravitreal antiangiogenics, should expand to include paracentral thickening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.