ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Clinical and Imaging Characteristics of Thin and Thick Idiopathic Epiretinal Membranes Assessed by High-Resolution OCT.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and imaging characteristics of thin and thick idiopathic epiretinal membranes (ERMs) using high-resolution (HR) optical coherence tomography (OCT) and to identify clinical factors associated with ERM thickness phenotype. Methods: All patients underwent comprehensive ophthalmologic examination and multimodal imaging, including HR-OCT. ERM morphology was evaluated on fovea-centered OCT scans and classified as thin or thick based on preretinal reflectivity patterns. Multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to identify factors independently associated with ERM type while accounting for inter-eye correlation. Results: Fifty-four eyes included in this analysis and 28 (51.9%) were classified as thin ERM, whereas 26 (48.1%) were thick ERM. Patients with thick ERM were significantly older than those with thin ERM (81.6 ± 6.2 vs. 75.7 ± 10.8 years, P = 0.039). Pseudophakia was more prevalent in the thick ERM group (84.6% vs. 60.7%, P < 0.001), as was the presence of AMD (69.2% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.003). Mean central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) did not differ significantly between thin and thick ERM groups (P > 0.05). In multivariable analysis, pseudophakia (odds ratio [OR] = 10.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29-83.10, P = 0.028) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD; OR = 4.12, 95% CI = 1.01-16.87, P = 0.049) were independently associated with thick ERM. Conclusions: HR-OCT enables in vivo differentiation of thin and thick idiopathic ERMs. Thick ERM is independently associated with pseudophakia and AMD but not with greater CMT or worse BCVA, suggesting that ERM thickness phenotype may reflect differences in factors other than vitreoretinal interface biology alone.
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.