Safety and Efficacy of Half-dose and Half-fluence Photodynamic Therapy in Chronic Central Serous Chorioretinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of half-dose photodynamic therapy (PDT) and half-fluence PDT in the management of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, covering publications from January 2000 to March 2024. The review focused on studies reporting the efficacy and safety of half-dose PDT compared to half-fluence PDT in treating chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. The primary outcome was the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the last study observation. Secondary outcomes included retinal thickness (RT), the presence of subretinal fluid (SRF), and SRF recurrence across follow-up visits. Random effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies (eight observational and two randomized controlled trials) were included in the analysis. The results indicated that half-dose PDT and half-fluence PDT achieved similar BCVA at 1 month (P = .24), 3 months (P = .40), and 6 months (P = .16). Similarly, there were no significant differences in RT at 1 month (P = .23), 3 months (P = .99), and at 6 months (P = .54) between the two treatment protocols. Both treatment protocols were associated with minor complications, indicating similar safety profiles in patients with CSCR. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that both half-dose and half-fluence PDT are effective and safe for treating CSCR, with no significant differences in BCVA, RT, or SRF resolution between the two modalities. These results support flexibility in selecting treatment based on individual patient needs. Further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up is required to optimize these protocols and confirm these results.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".