ArticleCureus2024
Vitreoretinal Interface Abnormalities in Patients With Retinal Vein Occlusion in a Tertiary Referral Center.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Efficacy of faricimab for recalcitrant multifactorial cystoid macular edema.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
- Full-Thickness Macular Hole After Faricimab Treatment for Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion-Associated Macular Edema with Vitreomacular Traction: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of vitreoretinal interface (VRI) disorders in patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and to evaluate the impact of VRI abnormalities on the treatment outcomes of macular edema secondary to RVO using intravitreal aflibercept.
methodsParticipants in this prospective study were consecutive patients with macular edema secondary to RVO, who received intravitreal aflibercept injections. At baseline, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was assessed, and spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) was performed to measure central subfield thickness (CST) and to evaluate the presence of VRI disorders, namely, vitreoretinal adhesion (VMA), vitreoretinal traction (VMT), epiretinal membrane (ERM), lamellar macular hole (LMH), and full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). The primary outcomes were the prevalence of various VRI disorders in patients with RVO and the impact of VRI disorders on BCVA and CST after aflibercept treatment in such patients.
resultsAt baseline, 16.1% of patients had VMA, 3.2% VMT, 18.3% ERM, and 1.1% LMH. There were a statistically significant improvement in BCVA and a decrease in CST in RVO patients over time. There was no statistically significant difference regarding BCVA and CST at baseline and until month 24 after treatment between patients with VRI disorders and those without VRI disorders. However, the mean number of injections during the follow-up period was higher in the group with VRI disorders (9.4±2.1) compared to those without VRI disorders (8.1±0.7, p=0.0002).
conclusionsThe prevalence of VRI disorders in patients with RVO was 16.1% for VMA, 3.2% for VMT, 18.3% for ERM, and 1.1% for LMH. VRI disorders were not found to affect the anatomical and visual outcomes after intravitreal aflibercept treatment in patients with RVO, although more intravitreal injections were needed in patients with VRI disorders.
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.