↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy: a network meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
4 tweeters
1 Facebook page
2 Wikipedia pages


69 Dimensions

Readers on

163 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.
Interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy: a network meta-analysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011841.pub2
Pubmed ID

Mahsa Salehi, Adam S Wenick, Hua Andrew Law, Jennifer R Evans, Peter Gehlbach


Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is characterized by serous detachment of the neural retina with dysfunction of the choroid and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). The effects on the retina are usually self limited, although some people are left with irreversible vision loss due to progressive and permanent photoreceptor damage or RPE atrophy. There have been a variety of interventions used in CSC, including, but not limited to, laser treatment, photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. However, it is not known whether these or other treatments offer significant advantages over observation or other interventions. At present there is no evidence-based consensus on the management of CSC. Due in large part to the propensity for CSC to resolve spontaneously or to follow a waxing and waning course, the most common initial approach to treatment is observation. It remains unclear whether this is the best approach with regard to safety and efficacy. To compare the relative effectiveness of interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to February 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 5 October 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any intervention for CSC with any other intervention for CSC or control. Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We pooled data from all studies using a fixed-effect model. For interventions applied to the eye (i.e. not systemic interventions), we synthesized direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis model. We included 25 studies with 1098 participants (1098 eyes) and follow-up from 16 weeks to 12 years. Studies were conducted in Europe, North and South America, Middle East, and Asia. The trials were small (most trials enrolled fewer than 50 participants) and poorly reported; often it was unclear whether key aspects of the trial, such as allocation concealment, had been done. A substantial proportion of the trials were not masked.The studies considered a variety of treatments: anti-VEGF (ranibizumab, bevacizumab), PDT (full-dose, half-dose, 30%, low-fluence), laser treatment (argon, krypton and micropulse laser), beta-blockers, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, Helicobactor pylori treatment, and nutritional supplements (Icaps, lutein); there were only one or two trials contributing data for each comparison. We downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision for most analyses, reflecting study limitations and imprecise estimates. Network meta-analysis (as planned in our protocol) did not help to resolve this uncertainty due to a lack of trials, and problems with intransitivity, particularly with respect to acute or chronic CSC.Low quality evidence from two trials suggested little difference in the effect of anti-VEGF (ranibizumab or bevacizumab) or observation on change in visual acuity at six months in acute CSC (mean difference (MD) 0.01 LogMAR (logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.03; 64 participants). CSC had resolved in all participants by six months. There were no significant adverse effects noted.Low quality evidence from one study (58 participants) suggested that half-dose PDT treatment of acute CSC probably results in a small improvement in vision (MD -0.10 logMAR, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02), less recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.81) and less persistent CSC (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.02) at 12 months compared to sham treatment. There were no significant adverse events noted.Low quality evidence from two trials (56 participants) comparing anti-VEGF to low-fluence PDT in chronic CSC found little evidence for any difference in visual acuity at 12 months (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.15). There was some evidence that more people in the anti-VEGF group had recurrent CSC compared to people treated with PDT but, due to inconsistency between trials, it was difficult to estimate an effect. More people in the anti-VEGF group had persistent CSC at 12 months (RR 6.19, 95% CI 1.61 to 23.81; 34 participants).Two small trials of micropulse laser, one in people with acute CSC and one in people with chronic CSC, provided low quality evidence that laser treatment may lead to better visual acuity (MD -0.20 logMAR, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11; 45 participants). There were no significant adverse effects noted.Other comparisons were largely inconclusive.We identified 12 ongoing trials covering the following interventions: aflibercept and eplerenone in acute CSC; spironolactone, eplerenone, lutein, PDT, and micropulse laser in chronic CSC; and micropulse laser and oral mifepristone in two trials where type of CSC not clearly specified. CSC remains an enigmatic condition in large part due to a natural history of spontaneous improvement in a high proportion of people and also because no single treatment has provided overwhelming evidence of efficacy in published RCTs. While a number of interventions have been proposed as potentially efficacious, the quality of study design, execution of the study and the relatively small number of participants enrolled and followed to revealing endpoints limits the utility of existing data. It is not clear whether there is a clinically important benefit to treating acute CSC which often resolves spontaneously as part of its natural history. RCTs comparing individual treatments to the natural history would be valuable in identifying potential treatment groups for head-to-head comparison. Of the interventions studied to date, PDT or micropulse laser treatment appear the most promising for study in future trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 10%
Other 40 25%
Unknown 20 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 27 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 25 January 2020.
All research outputs
of 15,496,877 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 368,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,496,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 368,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.