Pars plana vitrectomy versus intravitreal antibiotics for endophthalmitis management following intravitreal <scp>anti‐VEGF agents</scp>: A <scp>meta‐analysis</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) versus tap-and-inject (TAI) of intravitreal antibiotics for the management of endophthalmitis secondary to intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central (January 2005-October 2022). The primary analysis compared initial PPV versus TAI and the secondary analysis examined the efficacy and safety of TAI alone compared to TAI followed by PPV. The quality of non-randomized observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each outcome. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 7474 screened studies, nine studies reporting on 153 eyes were included. The change in mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between endophthalmitis presentation and last follow-up did not significantly differ between the initial TAI versus PPV groups (WMD = 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.22; p = 0.59; heterogeneity p = 0.41). The difference in pre- to post-treatment mean BCVA did not significantly differ between eyes that received TAI alone or TAI followed by PPV (WMD = 0.04 units; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.51; p = 0.85; heterogeneity p = 0.74). While the meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the change in BCVA between PPV and TAI to treat endophthalmitis secondary to anti-VEGF agents, the quality of evidence was low with potential for confounding and selection bias. Further well-designed studies in this setting are needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".