REtinal Detachment Outcomes Study (REDOS): study protocol for a factorial, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Few large randomized controlled trials provide strong evidence to guide surgical repair of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair. The purpose of this factorial, single-blind, randomized controlled trial is to analyze and compare the surgical outcomes, functional visual outcomes, complications, and quality of life associated with RRD repair using (A) pars plana vitrectomy only (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB) and (B) sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) or perfluoropropane gas (C3F8) tamponade. Methods Eligible patients with moderately complex RRD will be randomized 1:1 to PPV or PPV-SB and 1:1 to SF6 or C3F8 gas tamponade. Approximately 560 patients will be recruited to be able to detect a difference of around 10% in SSAS rate between the groups. Patients will be followed using multimodal imaging and quality of life questionnaires after the surgical repair until 1 year postoperative. The primary outcome will be a single-surgery anatomic success (SSAS), defined as the absence of reoperation for recurrent RRD in the operating room. Secondary outcomes will be pinhole visual acuity (PHVA) at 8–10 weeks and 6 months, final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), final retina status (i.e., attached or detached), time to onset of RRD recurrence, severity and number of complications, and questionnaire results. Discussion This will be the first 2 × 2 factorial RCT examining repair techniques in primary RRD. It will also be the first RCT to compare gas tamponade between the two most common agents. Notably, it will be adequately powered to detect a clinically significant effect size. The use of multimodal imaging will also be a novel aspect of this study, allowing us to compare head-to-head the impact of adding an SB to the retina’s recovery after RRD repair and of differing gas tamponades. Until now, the treatment of RRD has been largely guided by pragmatic retrospective cohort studies. There is a lack of strong evidence guiding therapeutic decisions and this trial will address (1) whether supplemental SB is justified and (2) whether longer duration gas tamponade with C3F8 is necessary. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05863312. Registered on 18 May 2023.
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 | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.015 |
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".