The Effects of Injection Site on the Reflux Following Intravitreal Injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the effects of injection site on the reflux after intravitreal injection. METHODS: One hundred and eighty eyes undergoing intravitreal injection including 0.1 ml of triamcinolone acetonide or bevacizumab or pegaptanib were divided to six groups (30 patients in each group) to compare the vitreal reflux after injection using superotemporal versus inferotemporal quadrant. The amount of intraoperative reflux was estimated by measuring the width of the subconjunctival bleb. An interventional, prospective, comparative clinical trial was applied. RESULTS: The mean bleb width as the reflux amount after injection of three drugs was statistically less after the inferotemporal injection (1.50 ± 0.94 mm for triamcinolone acetonide, p < 0.001; 1.60 ± 1.07 mm for bevacizumab, p < 0.001; and 1.77 ± 0.94 mm for pegaptanib, p = 0.001) than those in eyes undergoing the superotemporal injection (3.20 ± 1.63 mm for triamcinolone acetonide; 3.07 ± 1.53 mm for bevacizumab; and 2.80 ± 1.32 mm for pegaptanib). CONCLUSIONS: The injection through inferotemporal quadrant provides statistically significant less vitreal reflux for intravitreal drug injection. KEYWORDS: Intravitreal injection; Injection site; Reflux.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".