ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Intravitreal Plungerless Injector Device (IPLID): An Innovative Intravitreal Injector Device.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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.
- Intravitreal plungerless injector device (IPLID) for anterior chamber paracentesis: a novel approach to aqueous humor sampling.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
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
Purpose: To share our early experience with the novel intravitreal plungerless injector device (IPLID) for application in patients with various retinal diseases. Patients and Methods: This study enrolled 300 eyes (300 patients) who had undergone at least 1 previous conventional intravitreal injection, for various indications, such as diabetic macular edema, venous occlusions, active choroidal neovascular membrane, wet AMD and neovascular glaucoma. Patients with systemic conditions that could affect pain tolerance were excluded. All patients underwent intravitreal injection with the IPLID. After the procedure the patients were asked to grade pain compared to conventional injections. Immediately after the procedure, surgeons completed a simple survey on various aspects of the device, including safety of the procedure. Data were also collected on the duration of the procedure. Results: The study sample was comprised of 210 males and 90 females. The mean duration of the injection was 17.51 minutes (range, 15 minutes to 20 minutes). Post-IPLID injection, 155 (51.7%) patients reported less pain compared to previous injections, 128 (42.7) patients reported pain similar to previous injections and 5.7% (17) of patients reported more pain than previous procedures. The physician survey indicated that there was no difference between IPLID and conventional technique in 13.33% (40) of injections, and 86.67% (260) of the injections were comfortable to perform with the IPLID and size was not an issue in 91.67% (275) of injections. In all cases, the surgeons were comfortable with the delivery of medication with IPLID and there were no adverse events during or after IPLID injection. Conclusion: The IPLID is a simple device for delivering intravitreal injection and may offer greater ergonomic advantages and that address the issue of musculoskeletal disorders in healthcare personnel due to repetitive procedures over time.
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.