↓ Skip to main content

Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008350.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elham Hatef, Dayse F Sena, Katherine A Fallano, Jonathan Crews, Diana V Do

Abstract

Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a full-thickness break in the sensory retina, caused by vitreous traction on the retina. While pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckle, and vitrectomy are the accepted surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.  OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effectiveness and safety of pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle or pneumatic retinopexy versus a combination treatment of scleral buckle and vitrectomy for people with RRD. The secondary objectives were to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 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 13 January 2015. We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD. After screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set forth by The Cochrane Collaboration. We included two randomized controlled trials (218 eyes of 216 participants) comparing the effectiveness of pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for eyes with RRD. We identified no studies investigating the comparison of pneumatic retinopexy versus a combination treatment of scleral buckle and vitrectomy. Of the two included studies, one was a small study with 20 participants enrolled in Ireland and followed for an average of 16 months. The second study was larger with 196 participants (198 eyes) enrolled in the United States and followed for at least 6 months. Cautious interpretation of the results is warranted, since we graded the evidence as low to moderate quality due to insufficient reporting of study methods and imprecision and inconsistency among study results.Both studies showed fewer eyes achieving retinal reattachment in the pneumatic retinopexy group compared with the scleral buckle group by six-months follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.02, 218 eyes); however, we are uncertain as to whether the intervention has an important effect on reattachment because the results are imprecise. Eyes in the pneumatic retinopexy group also were more likely to have had a recurrence of retinal detachment by six-months follow-up (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.24, 218 eyes); however, we are uncertain as to whether the intervention has an important effect on recurrence because the lower CI equals no difference. Neither study reported mean change in visual acuity, quality of life data, or economic measures. Differences between the pneumatic retinopexy group and scleral buckle group were uncertain due to small numbers of events with respect to operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.42, 218 eyes), development of cataract (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.54, 198 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.91, 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.67, 198 eyes), and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96, 218 eyes). Fewer eyes in the pneumatic retinopexy group compared with the scleral buckle group experienced choroidal detachment (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57, 198 eyes) or myopic shift equal to or greater than 1 diopter spherical equivalent (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13, 198 eyes). The evidence suggests that pneumatic retinopexy may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than scleral buckle for eyes with RRD, but does not rule out no difference between procedures. The relative safety of the procedures is uncertain and the relative effects of these procedures in terms of other patient-important outcomes, such as visual acuity and quality of life, is unknown. Due to the limited information available between pneumatic retinopexy and scleral buckle procedures, future research addressing these evidence gaps are warranted.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Other 8 10%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 14 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,023,222
of 15,542,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,833
of 11,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,010
of 342,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,542,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 342,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.