Cargando…

Clinical efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor versus panretinal photocoagulation for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The argument on the optimal treatment for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) remains to be resolved. Therefore, the primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy versus panre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Yuxian, Zheng, Xiaowei, Chen, QiuJie, Wu, Ruibin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8084044/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33907139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025682
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The argument on the optimal treatment for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) remains to be resolved. Therefore, the primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for patients with PDR. METHODS: Two independent investigators followed The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration to conduct this meta-analysis. The electronic databases of EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from the inception to April 2021 using the following key terms: “proliferative diabetic retinopathy,” “anti-vascular endothelial growth factor,” and “panretinal photocoagulation,” for all relevant studies. We identified literature that met the following inclusion criteria: patients with PDR; studies focusing on assessing anti-VEGF therapy and PRP; the following outcome measures must be shown: anatomical outcomes, including complete regression and recurrence of neovascularization, mean change in best corrected vision acuity from baseline to the end of follow-up period. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included randomized clinical trials by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: This protocol will provide a reliable theoretical basis for the following research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UHYDR.