↓ Skip to main content

Macular grid laser photocoagulation for branch retinal vein occlusion

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Macular grid laser photocoagulation for branch retinal vein occlusion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008732.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fook Chang Lam, Seen N Chia, Richard MH Lee

Abstract

Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is the second most common cause of retinal vascular abnormality after diabetic retinopathy. Persistent macular oedema develops in 60% of eyes with a BRVO. Untreated, only 14% of eyes with chronic macular oedema will have a visual acuity (VA) of 20/40 or better. Macular grid laser photocoagulation is used for chronic non-ischaemic macular oedema following BRVO and has been the mainstay of treatment for over 20 years. New treatments are available and a systematic review is necessary to ensure that the most up-to-date evidence is considered objectively. To examine the effects of macular grid laser photocoagulation in the treatment of macular oedema following BRVO. We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 21 August 2014. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing macular grid laser photocoagulation treatment to another treatment, sham treatment or no treatment. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included five studies conducted in Europe and North America. Four separate trials compared grid laser to no treatment, sham treatment, intravitreal bevacizumab and intravitreal triamcinolone. One further trial compared subthreshold to threshold laser. Two of these trials were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains.In one trial of grid laser versus observation, people receiving grid laser were more likely to gain visual acuity (VA) (10 or more ETDRS letters) at 36 months (RR 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.84, 78 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of grid laser on loss of VA (10 or more letters) was uncertain as the results were imprecise (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.04, 78 participants, moderate-quality evidence). On average, people receiving grid laser had better improvement in VA (mean difference (MD) 0.11 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17, high-quality evidence). In a trial of early and delayed grid laser treatment versus sham laser (n = 108, data available for 99 participants), no participant gained or lost VA (15 or more ETDRS letters). At 12 months, there was no evidence for a difference in change in VA (from baseline) between early grid laser and sham laser (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.01, 68 participants, low-quality evidence) or between delayed grid laser and sham laser (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04, 66 participants, low-quality evidence).The relative effects of subthreshold and threshold laser were uncertain. In one trial, the RR for gain of VA (15 or more letters) at 12 months was 1.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 4.95, 36 participants, moderate-quality evidence); the RR for loss of VA (15 or more letters) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.06 to 5.63, moderate-quality evidence); and at 24 months the change in VA from baseline was MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.24, moderate-quality evidence).The relative effects of macular grid laser and intravitreal bevacizumab were uncertain. In one trial, the RR for gain of 15 or more letters at 12 months was 0.67 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.14, 30 participants, low-quality evidence). Loss of 15 or more letters was not reported. Change in VA at 12 months was MD 0.11 logMAR (95% CI -0.36 to 0.14, low-quality evidence).The relative effects of grid laser and 1mg triamcinolone were uncertain at 12 months. RR for gain of VA (15 or more letters) was 1.13 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.71, 1 RCT, 242 participants, moderate-quality evidence); RR for loss of VA (15 or more letters) was 1.20 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence); MD for change in VA was -0.03 letters (95% CI -0.12 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence). Similar results were seen for the comparison with 4mg triamcinolone. Beyond 12 months, the visual outcomes were in favour of grid laser at 24 months and 36 months with people in the macular grid group gaining more VA.Four studies reported on adverse effects. Laser photocoagulation appeared to be well tolerated in the studies. One participant (out of 71) suffered a perforation of Bruch's membrane, but this did not affect visual acuity. Moderate-quality evidence from one RCT supports the use of grid laser photocoagulation to treat macular oedema following BRVO. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of early grid laser or subthreshold laser. There was insufficient evidence to show a benefit of intravitreal triamcinolone or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) over macular grid laser photocoagulation in BRVO. With recent interest in the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroid therapy, assessment of treatment efficacy (change in visual acuity and foveal or central macular thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT)) and the number of treatments needed for maintenance and long-term safety will be important for future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 16 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,305,217
of 15,685,682 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,939
of 11,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,421
of 232,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,685,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.