Cochrane · systematic review · CD010859
Monotherapy laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema
Jorge, EC, Jorge, EN, Botelho, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 14.3%Low 2 · 14.3%Moderate 3 · 21.4%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Laser photocoagulation versus no intervention for diabetic macular oedema
Population: diabetic macular oedema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Improvement of BCVA defined as ≥ 15 ETDRS letters (i.e. 3 ETDRS lines or 0.3 logMAR Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Worsening of BCVA defined as ≥ 15 ETDRS letters (i.e. 3 ETDRS lines or 0.3 logMAR Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | RR 0.42 [0.2, 0.9] | NR | Moderate |
Continuous BCVA on the logMAR scale (lower logMAR scores represent better visual acuity) Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Anatomic measures: partial to complete resolution of the macular oedema with stereoscopic fundus photography or biomicroscopy; leakage on fluorescein angiography (IVFA); and, if available, retinal macular thickness with OCT Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | RR 1.55 [1.3, 1.86] | NR | Moderate |
Central retinal thickness (μm) Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measures Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Laser photocoagulation vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Subthreshold versus standard macular photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema
Population: diabetic macular oedema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Improvement of BCVA defined as ≥ 15 ETDRS letters (i.e. 3 ETDRS lines or 0.3 logMAR, recorded at 12 months (plus or minus 6 months). Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | RR 0.31 [0.01, 7.09] | NR | Very low |
Worsening of BCVA defined as ≥ 15 ETDRS letters (i.e. 3 ETDRS lines or 0.3 logMAR, recorded at 12 months (plus or minus 6 months). Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | RR 0.93 [0.15, 5.76] | NR | Very low |
Continuous BCVA: final (or change of) visual acuity Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Anatomic measures: partial to complete resolution of the macular oedema with stereoscopic fundus photography or biomicroscopy; retinal macular thickness with OCT and leakage on fluorescein angiography (IVFA) Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | RR 0.47 [0.21, 1.03] | NR | Low |
Final (or change of) central retinal thickness (μm): Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate |
Quality of life measures Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Subthreshold vs standard macular photocoagulation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |