首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Ophthalmology >Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years
【2h】

Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years

机译:增殖性玻璃体视网膜病变(PVR)的分类:最近15年在出版物中的使用分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Purpose. To evaluate the current and suitable use of current proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) classifications in clinical publications related to treatment. Methods. A PubMed search was undertaken using the term “proliferative vitreoretinopathy therapy”. Outcome parameters were the reported PVR classification and PVR grades. The way the classifications were used in comparison to the original description was analyzed. Classification errors were also included. It was also noted whether classifications were used for comparison before and after pharmacological or surgical treatment. Results. 138 papers were included. 35 of them (25.4%) presented no classification reference or did not use any one. 103 publications (74.6%) used a standardized classification. The updated Retina Society Classification, the first Retina Society Classification, and the Silicone Study Classification were cited in 56.3%, 33.9%, and 3.8% papers, respectively. Furthermore, 3 authors (2.9%) used modified-customized classifications and 4 (3.8%) classification errors were identified. When the updated Retina Society Classification was used, only 10.4% of authors used a full C grade description. Finally, only 2 authors reported PVR grade before and after treatment. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that current classifications are of limited value in clinical practice due to the inconsistent and limited use and that it may be of benefit to produce a revised classification.
机译:目的。在与治疗有关的临床出版物中评估当前的增殖性玻璃体视网膜病变(PVR)分类的当前使用情况和适当使用情况。方法。使用术语“增生性玻璃体视网膜病变疗法”进行了PubMed搜索。结果参数是报告的PVR分类和PVR等级。分析了与原始描述相比使用分类的方式。分类错误也包括在内。还注意到在药理或手术治疗之前和之后是否使用分类进行比较。结果。收录138篇论文。其中35个(25.4%)未提供分类参考或未使用任何参考。 103个出版物(占74.6%)使用了标准化分类。分别在56.3%,33.9%和3.8%的论文中引用了更新的《视网膜学会分类》,第一个《视网膜学会分类》和《有机硅研究分类》。此外,有3位作者(2.9%)使用了修改后的定制分类,并且发现了4位(3.8%)分类错误。使用更新的《视网膜学会分类》时,只有10.4%的作者使用了完整的C级描述。最后,只有2位作者报告了治疗前后的PVR分级。结论。我们的发现表明,由于分类不一致和使用受限,目前的分类在临床实践中价值不高,产生修订的分类可能会有所帮助。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号