IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Qinying Huang
  • Jinying Li

Abstract

Background: Although previously published meta-analyses have compared the surgical effects between the methods of Idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal with or without ILM peeling, they did not reach an agreement. Purpose: We aimed to provide more evidence for the treatment of iERM and whether additional ILM peeling was better or not by analyzing more updated studies and randomized control trials (RCTs). Method: The search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Open Grey without language limitation and the studies included were from inception to December 2019. All studies of iERM with or without ILM peeling showed at least one of outcomes, such as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and recurrence of ERM. The pooled results between above groups were showed by the mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Result: In total, 1645 eyes of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and fifteen retrospective studies were included. The short-term (

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245459
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245459
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245459&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459?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. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.

    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:pone00:0245459. 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.