MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401528424 · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.08.012

Facedown Positioning in Macular Hole Surgery

2024· review· en· W4401528424 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Raimondi, Nikolaos Tzoumas, Steven Toh, Gurkaran S. Sarohia, Mark Phillips, Varun Chaudhary, David Steel

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMacular holeMEDLINEOptometryOphthalmologySurgeryVitrectomyInternal medicineVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TOPIC: To assess the anatomic and visual effects of facedown positioning (FDP) advice in patients undergoing vitrectomy with gas tamponade for idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs) and to explore differential treatment effects by macular hole size and FDP duration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The necessity and duration of FDP for FTMH closure remain contentious, with no consensus guidelines. METHODS: Prospectively registered systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing FDP with no FDP (nFDP) across the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and clinical trial registries from January 2000 to March 2023 (CRD42023395152). All adults with idiopathic FTMHs undergoing vitrectomy with gas tamponade were included. The main outcomes were primary macular hole closure and postoperative visual acuity at 6 months or nearest time point. RESULTS: Of 8 eligible trials, 5 contributed IPD for 379 eyes and were included in our analysis. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for primary closure with FDP versus nFDP was 2.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-5.93, P = 0.06; low-certainty evidence), translating to a risk ratio (RR) of 1.08 (1.00-1.11) and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 15. The FDP group exhibited a mean improvement in postoperative visual acuity of -0.08 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (-0.13 to -0.02, P = 0.006; low-certainty evidence) compared with the nFDP group. Benefits were more certain in participants with larger holes of minimum linear diameter ≥ 400 μm: adjusted OR for closure ranged from 1.13 to 10.12 (P = 0.030) (NNT 12), with a mean visual acuity improvement of -0.18 to -0.01 logMAR (P = 0.022). Each additional day of FDP was associated with improved odds of anatomic success (adjusted OR, 1.02-1.41, RR, 1.00-1.02, P = 0.026) and visual acuity improvement (-0.02 logMAR, -0.03 to -0.01, P = 0.002), possibly plateauing at 3 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides low-certainty evidence that FDP improves the anatomic and visual outcomes of macular hole surgery modestly and indicates that the effect may be more substantial for macular holes exceeding 400 μm. The findings support recommending FDP for patients with macular holes exceeding 400 μm pending further investigation. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmologySame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207