Trial reportEye (London, England)2025
Safety and efficacy of supraciliary dexamethasone implantation for macular oedema: a preliminary comparative study.
Trial report in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone implantation in the supraciliary (SC) space, a novel and potential effective implantation site, compared to intravitreal (IV) application.
methodsThis prospective study included 39 eyes of 38 patients with macular oedema (ME) who underwent SC and IV dexamethasone implantation (SC-DEX and IV-DEX). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups and followed for 3 months. Preoperative and postoperative assessments included maximum retinal thickness (MRT), change in central retinal thickness between consecutive visits (ΔCRT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA).
resultsBoth SC-DEX and IV-DEX groups showed significant MRT reductions during at follow-up. In the SC group, MRT significantly decreased at 1st and 3rd months (p = 0.0002 for both), but not at 1st week (p = 0.2517). In the IV-DEX group, significant reductions in MRT were observed at all postoperative visits: 1st week (p = 0.0002), 1st month (p = 0.0004), and 3rd month (p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences in the change in ΔCRT between the SC-DEX and IV-DEX groups at any visit (p > 0.05). IOP did not show significant changes (p > 0.05). BCVA improved significantly in the SC group compared to the IV-DEX group during the first week (p = 0.014). No other perioperative or postoperative sight-threatening complications were noted in either group, including hypotony or endophthalmitis.
conclusionSC-DEX shows promise as an alternative for managing ME, offering similar effectiveness to IV-DEX with safe profile. Further studies are needed to confirm its long-term safety and efficacy.
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.