ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Long-term real-world outcomes in retinal vein occlusions: How close are we to the trials?
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent Onset of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion and Inflammation of a Large Maxillary Odontogenic Cyst: Case Report and Analysis.Reports (MDPI) · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess and analyze the visual outcomes of patients with retinal vein occlusions in a real-world setting with a long-term follow-up of more than 5 years. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 56 patients having retinal vein occlusions from a tertiary eye center, with a mean follow-up of 7 years was performed. Primary outcome measures were mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and final visit (≥5 years), proportion of patients having BCVA better than 20/40 and worse than 20/200, and mean number of injections. Secondary outcome measures were change in central macular thickness (CMT), development of subsequent retinal vein occlusion (RVO) in same eye or the other eye, and development of neovascular complications. Results: The mean change in letter score was + 11.84 in branch RVO (BRVO), +7.14 in non-ischemic central RVO (CRVO), and -9.5 in ischemic CRVO at 1 year, which changed to + 8.57, -5 and - 24, respectively, at the end of follow-up. CMT had improved from 506 ± 98.8 μm, 576.44 ± 149 μm, and 618 ± 178.27 μm, respectively, at baseline to 267 ± 94 μm, 345.20 ± 122.61 μm, and 265.50 ± 107.75 μm, respectively, in BRVO, non-ischemic, and ischemic hemi RVO (HRVO)/CRVO groups. The total mean number of injections given in BRVO, non-ischemic CRVO, and ischemic CRVO groups were 4.6, 6.6, and 4.1, respectively. None of the patients with BRVO developed neovascular glaucoma (NVG). Non-ischemic to ischemic HRVO/CRVO conversion was noted in 4/11 eyes at a mean duration of 12.6 months. NVG was noted in 7/9 eyes (77.8%) in initial ischemic CRVO/HRVO group and 3/4 (75%) converted eyes. Conclusion: Patients with BRVO have good visual outcomes with anti-VEGF, while in CRVO results may vary considerably owing to patient compliance and treatment burden on long-term follow-up in a real-world setting.
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.