IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Wei-Cheng Chang
  • Chin Lin
  • Cho-Hao Lee
  • Tzu-Ling Sung
  • Tao-Hsin Tung
  • Jorn-Hon Liu

Abstract

Background: Studies on vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) have yielded uncertain results regarding clinical outcomes and recurrence rates. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for idiopathic ERM. Methods: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI databases, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov, published until July 2016, were searched to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes following vitrectomy with ERM and ILM peeling and with only ERM peeling, for treating idiopathic ERM. Studies with sufficient data were selected. Pooled results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling with regard to postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and ERM recurrence rate. Results: Eleven retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 756 eyes were identified. This demonstrated that the postoperative BCVA within 12 months was significantly better in the non-ILM peeling group (MD = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.08; P = 0.0460), but that the patients in the ILM peeling group had significantly better postoperative BCVA after 18 months (MD = −0.13, 95% CI: −0.23 to −0.04; P = 0.0049) than did those in the non-ILM peeling group. The non-ILM peeling group exhibited a higher reduction in postoperative CRT (MD = 51.55, 95% CI:−84.23 to −18.88; P = 0.0020) and a higher recurrence rate of ERM (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.16 to 0.72; P = 0.0048) than did the ILM peeling group. However, the improvement rates of BCVA (RR = 1.03, 95% CI:0.72 to 1.47; P = 0.8802) and postoperative CRTs (MD = 18.15, 95% CI:−2.29 to 38.60; P = 0.0818) were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Vitrectomy with ILM peeling results in better visual improvement in long-term follow-ups and lower ERM recurrence rates, and vitrectomy with only ERM peeling is more efficacious in reduction of CRT than is vitrectomy with ILM peeling.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei-Cheng Chang & Chin Lin & Cho-Hao Lee & Tzu-Ling Sung & Tao-Hsin Tung & Jorn-Hon Liu, 2017. "Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179105
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179105&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    2. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matteo Fallico & Andrea Russo & Antonio Longo & Alfredo Pulvirenti & Teresio Avitabile & Vincenza Bonfiglio & Niccolò Castellino & Gilda Cennamo & Michele Reibaldi, 2018. "Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Qinying Huang & Jinying Li, 2021. "With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    2. Mahesh Shumsher Rughooputh & Rui Zeng & Ying Yao, 2015. "Protein Diet Restriction Slows Chronic Kidney Disease Progression in Non-Diabetic and in Type 1 Diabetic Patients, but Not in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Christopher Winchester & Kelsey E. Medeiros, 2023. "In Bounds but Out of the Box: A Meta-Analysis Clarifying the Effect of Ethicality on Creativity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 713-743, March.
    4. Kelly R Moran & Sara Y Del Valle, 2016. "A Meta-Analysis of the Association between Gender and Protective Behaviors in Response to Respiratory Epidemics and Pandemics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Sandra Feijóo & Raquel Rodríguez-Fernández, 2021. "A Meta-Analytical Review of Gender-Based School Bullying in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Xizheng Xu & Zhiqiang Liu & Shaoying Gong & Yunpeng Wu, 2022. "The Relationship between Empathy and Attachment in Children and Adolescents: Three-Level Meta-Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Kathrin Wunsch & Janis Fiedler & Philip Bachert & Alexander Woll, 2021. "The Tridirectional Relationship among Physical Activity, Stress, and Academic Performance in University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Alan da Silveira Fleck & Margaux L. Sadoine & Stéphane Buteau & Eva Suarthana & Maximilien Debia & Audrey Smargiassi, 2021. "Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV 1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Evangelos Danopoulos & Maureen Twiddy & Jeanette M Rotchell, 2020. "Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, July.
    10. Claudia Menne-Lothmann & Wolfgang Viechtbauer & Petra Höhn & Zuzana Kasanova & Simone P Haller & Marjan Drukker & Jim van Os & Marieke Wichers & Jennifer Y F Lau, 2014. "How to Boost Positive Interpretations? A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    11. Christopher Hansen & Holger Steinmetz & Jörn Block, 2022. "How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Shaylea Badovinac & Jodi Martin & Camille Guérin-Marion & Monica O’Neill & Rebecca Pillai Riddell & Jean-François Bureau & Rebecca Spiegel, 2018. "Associations between mother-preschooler attachment and maternal depression symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, October.
    13. Fazel, Seena & Burghart, Matthias & Fanshawe, Thomas & Gil, Sharon Danielle & Monahan, John & Yu, Rongqin, 2022. "The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing: Systematic review of validation studies," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    14. Amro Qaddoura & Payam Yazdan-Ashoori & Conrad Kabali & Lehana Thabane & R Brian Haynes & Stuart J Connolly & Harriette Gillian Christine Van Spall, 2015. "Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    15. Boshra H. Namin & Torvald Øgaard & Jo Røislien, 2021. "Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Ruohuang Jiao & Wojtek Przepiorka & Vincent Buskens, 2022. "Moderators of reputation effects in peer-to-peer online markets: a meta-analytic model selection approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1041-1067, May.
    17. Pedro Silva Moreira & Pedro R Almeida & Hugo Leite-Almeida & Nuno Sousa & Patrício Costa, 2016. "Impact of Chronic Stress Protocols in Learning and Memory in Rodents: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-24, September.
    18. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2020. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 465-486, May.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:720-744 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Tyler Blazey & Abraham Z Snyder & Manu S Goyal & Andrei G Vlassenko & Marcus E Raichle, 2018. "A systematic meta-analysis of oxygen-to-glucose and oxygen-to-carbohydrate ratios in the resting human brain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    21. Woodley of Menie, Michael A. & Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo & Sarraf, Matthew A., 2022. "Signs of a Flynn effect in rodents? Secular differentiation of the manifold of general cognitive ability in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) and Norwegian rats (Rattus norvegicus) over a century—Results," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.