Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38914720›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2024

Greener intravitreal injections: a narrative review.

Ariel Yuhan Ong, Johannes Birtel, Peter Charbel Issa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Travel-associated emissions of intravitreal injections.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Patients' Perspectives on Climate Change, Health, and Sustainability in Ophthalmology.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Ariel Yuhan OngOxford Eye Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9300-573X
Johannes BirtelOxford Eye Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Peter Charbel IssaOxford Eye Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. study-enquiry@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0351-6673

Funding

DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) n.a.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare services are significant contributors to climate change. Ophthalmology, by virtue of the volume of appointments and procedures it generates, is thought to play a major role in this regard. Intravitreal injections (IVI) are a commonly performed ophthalmological procedure to treat patients with conditions such as macular neovascularisation secondary to neovascular age-related macular disease or myopia, diabetic macular oedema, and retinal vein occlusions. As IVIs become more ubiquitous, addressing their environmental impact and sustainability will become increasingly important. Strategies to tackle carbon emissions from IVIs may target the following areas which align with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol scopes: building energy; water consumption; travel to appointments; manufacture and procurement of the drug and other necessary materials; and waste disposal. We propose a path towards a more sustainable approach for IVIs, and discuss its potential safety as well as the patient experience.

Indexed as

Intravitreal InjectionsAngiogenesis InhibitorsClimate ChangeHumansAngiogenesis Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID38914720
PMCPMC11461839

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.