A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing nepafenac, intravitreal triamcinolone and no adjuvant therapy for epiretinal membrane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of topical nepafenac 0.1% versus intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) at the conclusion of vitrectomy surgery versus no adjuvant therapy (NAT) in improving macular morphology post-operatively in patients undergoing vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM), as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). METHODS: Design: Prospective randomized clinical trial Setting: Multi-centre 80 patients scheduled to undergo vitrectomy surgery for idiopathic ERM were randomized to receive either IVTA (4 mg/0.1 cc) at the end of surgery, topical nepafenac sodium 0.1% TID for 1 month post-operation or no adjuvant treatment (NAT). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, best-corrected visual acuity and intraocular pressure (IOP) were measured before surgery, and 1 and 2 months post-operation. RESULTS: Although all three groups showed reduction in macular thickness post-operation, the NAT group showed the most improvement, with a reduction of 136.18 ± 29.84 μm at two months. There was no statistically significant difference in macular thickness between the groups at each time point, p = 0.158. The NAT group also had the best recovery in BCVA with an improvement of 0.207 logMAR (10.35 letters) at two months post-operation. There was no statistically significant difference in BCVA between the groups, p = 0.606. There was statistically significant difference in the IOP between the three groups, p = 0.04 only at 1-month visit. The IVTA group had the highest rise in average IOP at both 1 and 2 months post-operation (2.72 and 1.58 mmHg, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study data suggest there was no advantage in the use of topical nepafenac or IVTA for post-vitrectomy ERM surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".