FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2094894181> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2094894181 endingPage "655" @default.
• W2094894181 startingPage "649" @default.
• W2094894181 abstract "Objective To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling improves anatomic and functional outcomes of full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) surgery when compared with the no-peeling technique. Design Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis undertaken under the auspices of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Participants and Controls Patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH undergoing vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling. Intervention Macular hole surgery, including vitrectomy and gas endotamponade with or without ILM peeling. Main Outcome Measures Primary outcome was best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCdVA) at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were BCdVA at 3 and 12 months; best-corrected near visual acuity (BCnVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months; primary (after a single surgery) and final (after >1 surgery) macular hole closure; need for additional surgical interventions; intraoperative and postoperative complications; patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (EuroQol-5D and Vision Function Questionnaire-25 scores at 6 months); and cost-effectiveness. Results Four RCTs were identified and included in the review. All RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; IPD were obtained from 3 of the 4 RCTs. No evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 6 months was detected (mean difference, −0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.12 to 0.03; P = 0.27); however, there was evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 3 months favoring ILM peeling (mean difference, −0.09; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.02; P = 0.02). There was evidence of an effect favoring ILM peeling with regard to primary (odds ratio [OR], 9.27; 95% CI, 4.98–17.24; P < 0.00001) and final macular hole closure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.63–9.75; P = 0.02) and less requirement for additional surgery (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05–0.23; P < 0.00001), with no evidence of a difference between groups with regard to intraoperative or postoperative complications or PROs. The ILM peeling was found to be highly cost-effective. Conclusions Available evidence supports ILM peeling as the treatment of choice for patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH. To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling improves anatomic and functional outcomes of full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) surgery when compared with the no-peeling technique. Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis undertaken under the auspices of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH undergoing vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling. Macular hole surgery, including vitrectomy and gas endotamponade with or without ILM peeling. Primary outcome was best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCdVA) at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were BCdVA at 3 and 12 months; best-corrected near visual acuity (BCnVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months; primary (after a single surgery) and final (after >1 surgery) macular hole closure; need for additional surgical interventions; intraoperative and postoperative complications; patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (EuroQol-5D and Vision Function Questionnaire-25 scores at 6 months); and cost-effectiveness. Four RCTs were identified and included in the review. All RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; IPD were obtained from 3 of the 4 RCTs. No evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 6 months was detected (mean difference, −0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.12 to 0.03; P = 0.27); however, there was evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 3 months favoring ILM peeling (mean difference, −0.09; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.02; P = 0.02). There was evidence of an effect favoring ILM peeling with regard to primary (odds ratio [OR], 9.27; 95% CI, 4.98–17.24; P < 0.00001) and final macular hole closure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.63–9.75; P = 0.02) and less requirement for additional surgery (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05–0.23; P < 0.00001), with no evidence of a difference between groups with regard to intraoperative or postoperative complications or PROs. The ILM peeling was found to be highly cost-effective. Available evidence supports ILM peeling as the treatment of choice for patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH." @default.
• W2094894181 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5008398850 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5014959817 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5018209581 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5018731744 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5056938637 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5063110607 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5077310549 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5082076071 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5083564913 @default.
• W2094894181 creator A5090676693 @default.
• W2094894181 date "2014-03-01" @default.
• W2094894181 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2094894181 title "Vitrectomy with Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling versus No Peeling for Idiopathic Full-Thickness Macular Hole" @default.
• W2094894181 cites W14836701 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W1554040650 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W1590346139 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2002282409 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2007316832 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2017405067 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2018378386 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2022107665 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2029260420 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2031037786 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2037390777 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2042562680 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2046818410 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2053905790 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2056806360 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2058347152 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2059052361 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2066395752 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2072452212 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2075908956 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2137367218 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2152312015 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W2156303270 @default.
• W2094894181 cites W4361980600 @default.
• W2094894181 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.020" @default.
• W2094894181 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24314837" @default.
• W2094894181 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2094894181 type Work @default.
• W2094894181 sameAs 2094894181 @default.
• W2094894181 citedByCount "130" @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812014 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812015 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812016 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812017 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812018 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812019 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812020 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812021 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812022 @default.
• W2094894181 countsByYear W20948941812023 @default.
• W2094894181 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5008398850 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5014959817 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5018209581 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5018731744 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5056938637 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5063110607 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5077310549 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5082076071 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5083564913 @default.
• W2094894181 hasAuthorship W2094894181A5090676693 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C2777063560 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C2777344775 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C2781242345 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C3018016631 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C118487528 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C126322002 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C141071460 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C168563851 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C2777063560 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C2777344775 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C2778257484 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C2781242345 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C3018016631 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C44249647 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C71924100 @default.
• W2094894181 hasConceptScore W2094894181C95190672 @default.
• W2094894181 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2094894181 hasLocation W20948941811 @default.
• W2094894181 hasLocation W20948941812 @default.
• W2094894181 hasOpenAccess W2094894181 @default.
• W2094894181 hasPrimaryLocation W20948941811 @default.
• W2094894181 hasRelatedWork W1973816439 @default.
• W2094894181 hasRelatedWork W2054522649 @default.
• W2094894181 hasRelatedWork W2074885758 @default.

• next