ArticleClinical & experimental ophthalmology
Impact of cataract surgery on patients receiving intravitreal therapy for retinal vein occlusion.
Article in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of cataract surgery on patients receiving intravitreal therapy for retinal vein occlusion.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess clinical outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes treated with intravitreal injections for cystoid macular oedema (CMO) secondary to retinal vein occlusions (RVOs).
methodsEyes receiving intravitreal injections for CMO secondary to RVOs that underwent cataract extraction were identified from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry and matched 1:1 by 9 parameters with phakic controls also receiving intravitreal injections for the same condition. VA change at 12 months, central subfield thickness (CST) and injection frequency before and after surgery were compared between the two groups. The effect of baseline features on the final VA including age, CST, treatment frequency among others was tested.
resultsWe included 193 eyes that had cataract extraction (exposed) matched with 193 phakic eyes that did not have surgery (matched). VA (95%CI) changed by +9.9 (7, 12.8) letters in exposed eyes versus -2.4 (-4.1, -0.7) letters in matched eyes (p < 0.01). The mean [SD] VA at 12 months was similar in exposed and matched eyes [60.7 (23.0) vs. 61.1 (24.3) letters, respectively, p = 0.81]. The mean [SD] CST was similar between groups before and at surgery, but it was greater in exposed compared with matched eyes [353 (152) vs. 322 (123) μm, respectively, p = 0.03] 12 months after surgery. Exposed eyes received more injections [median (range)] than matched eyes during the 12 months after surgery [5 (3, 7) vs. 4 (1, 6), injections, p < 0.01].
conclusionsCataract extraction delivered good visual outcomes in patients treated for CMO secondary to RVOs. More injections were required on average in the 12 months after surgery in eyes undergoing surgery compared to matched controls.
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.