ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2026
Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide Alone or Combined with Intravitreal Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) monotherapy versus combined intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and bevacizumab (IVTA+IVB) therapy in the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods: In this retrospective study, 66 eyes of 65 patients with BRVO-related macular edema were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: IVTA monotherapy (n=37) and IVTA+IVB combination therapy (n=29). Central macular thickness (CMT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were measured at baseline, week 1, and months 1, 3, and 6 after injection. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in BCVA and reductions in CMT compared with baseline (p<0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the groups at any follow-up time point. IOP was significantly elevated in the IVTA group at several time points (p<0.05), while the combination group showed stable IOP levels. New-onset glaucoma developed in 8 patients in the IVTA group and only 1 patient in the combination group. No serious ocular complications occurred in either group. Conclusion: Both treatment regimens provided comparable anatomical and visual improvements; however, combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile. Although the use of IVTA has declined in contemporary clinical practice in favor of intravitreal dexamethasone implants, this study suggests that IVTA alone or in combination may still offer a viable and cost-effective alternative in regions where access to current therapies is limited or in low-resource settings.
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.