↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vitrectomy for idiopathic macular hole

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 (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 Facebook page
1 Wikipedia page


85 Dimensions

Readers on

175 Mendeley
Vitrectomy for idiopathic macular hole
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009080.pub2
Pubmed ID

Mariacristina Parravano, Fabrizio Giansanti, Chiara M Eandi, Yew C Yap, Stanislao Rizzo, Gianni Virgili


A macular hole is an anatomic opening in the retina that develops at the fovea. Macular holes can be seen in highly myopic eyes or following ocular trauma, but the great majority are idiopathic. Pars plana vitrectomy was introduced to treat full-thickness macular holes, which if left untreated have a poor prognosis since spontaneous closure and visual recovery are rare.Vitrectomy is a surgical technique involving the removal of the vitreous body that fills the eye. The surgeon inserts thin cannulas into the eyes through scleral incisions to relieve traction exerted by the vitreous or epiretinal membranes to the central retina and to induce glial tissue to bridge and close the hole. The primary objective of this review was to examine the effects of vitrectomy for idiopathic macular hole on visual acuity. A secondary objective was to investigate anatomic effects on hole closure and other dimensions of visual function, as well as to report on adverse effects recorded in included studies. We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (4 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2015), the Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (January 1980 to March 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 4 March 2015. We included randomised controlled trials comparing vitrectomy (with or without internal limiting membrane peeling) to no treatment (that is observation) for macular holes. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted the data. We estimated best corrected visual acuity and macular hole closure at 6 to 12 months of follow-up. Three studies provided data on the comparison between vitrectomy and observation in eyes with macular hole and visual acuity less than 20/50. Two studies, conducted in the USA and published in 1996 and 1997, used a similar protocol and included participants with stage II macular hole (42 eyes randomised, 36 analysed, number of participants not reported) or participants with stage III/IV hole (129 eyes of 120 participants, 115 eyes in analyses). The third study, conducted in the UK and published in 2004, included 185 eyes of 174 participants with full-thickness macular hole (41 eyes with stage II holes and 74 eyes with stage III/IV holes in analyses). Studies were of good quality for randomisation and allocation concealment, whereas visual acuity measurement was unmasked.At 6 to 12 months, visual acuity was improved by about 1.5 Snellen lines (-0.16 logMAR, 95% confidence intervals -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR, 270 eyes, moderate-quality evidence). The chances of macular hole closure at 6 to 12 months were greatly increased using vitrectomy, yielding an odds ratio of 31.4 (95% confidence intervals 14.9 to 66.3, 265 eyes, high-quality evidence; raw sum data: 76% vitrectomy, 11% observation). Vitrectomy was beneficial both in smaller (stage II) and in larger (stage III/IV) macular holes.The largest study reported that cataract surgery was needed in about half of cases at two years after operation and that retinal detachment occurred in about 5% of operated eyes. Vitrectomy is effective in improving visual acuity, resulting in a moderate visual gain, and in achieving hole closure in people with macular hole. However, these results may not apply to modern surgery due to technological improvements in vitrectomy techniques.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 54 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 67 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 March 2020.
All research outputs
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 279,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 279,303 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.