MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388014735 · doi:10.1159/000534851

Pars Plana Vitrectomy with or without Internal Limiting Membrane Peel for Epiretinal Membrane: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4388014735 on OpenAlex
Andrew Mihalache, Ryan S. Huang, Haleema Ahmed, Nikhil S. Patil, Marko M. Popovic, Peter J. Kertes, Rajeev H. Muni

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmologica · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrectomyMedicinePars planaEpiretinal membraneCochrane LibraryOphthalmologyMeta-analysisVisual acuityRandomized controlled trialPhacoemulsificationRelative riskObservational studySurgeryConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling remains poorly understood for the treatment of epiretinal membrane (ERM). OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PPV with and without ILM peeling for ERM. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 2000 to January 2023 for comparative studies reporting visual and anatomical outcomes for patients with ERM that received PPV with or without ILM peeling. Primary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at last study observation and change in BCVA from baseline. Secondary outcomes included retinal thickness (RT) at last study observation, change in RT from baseline, risk of ERM recurrence, and adverse events. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool of observational studies using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. The certainty of evidence of outcomes was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Nineteen studies reporting on 1,291 eyes at baseline were included. PPV with and without ILM peel achieved a similar BCVA at last study observation (p = 0.68) and change in BCVA from baseline (p = 0.79). These findings remained consistent irrespective of whether simultaneous phacoemulsification was performed. PPV with ILM peel achieved a significantly lower incidence of ERM recurrence (risk ratio [RR] = 0.26, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.51], p < 0.0001) and additional surgery (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.74], p = 0.02) compared to PPV without ILM peel. CONCLUSION: PPV with and without ILM peel achieved a similar BCVA at last study observation in ERM patients. Patients treated with PPV and ILM peel also had a reduced risk of ERM recurrence and lower reoperation risk. These conclusions are associated with a moderate certainty of evidence and potential for bias from multiple non-randomized studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it