Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years
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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7807596 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832548168583086080 |
|---|---|
| author | Salvatore Di Lauro Mustafa R. Kadhim David G. Charteris J. Carlos Pastor |
| author_facet | Salvatore Di Lauro Mustafa R. Kadhim David G. Charteris J. Carlos Pastor |
| author_sort | Salvatore Di Lauro |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-02ab346323b6463d91c99f2f81732396 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-004X 2090-0058 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-02ab346323b6463d91c99f2f817323962025-02-03T06:41:59ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582016-01-01201610.1155/2016/78075967807596Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 YearsSalvatore Di Lauro0Mustafa R. Kadhim1David G. Charteris2J. Carlos Pastor3IOBA (Eye Institute), University of Valladolid, 47011 Valladolid, SpainMoorfields Eye Hospital, London EC1V 2PD, UKMoorfields Eye Hospital, London EC1V 2PD, UKIOBA (Eye Institute), University of Valladolid, 47011 Valladolid, SpainPurpose. 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7807596 |
| spellingShingle | Salvatore Di Lauro Mustafa R. Kadhim David G. Charteris J. Carlos Pastor Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years Journal of Ophthalmology |
| title | Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years |
| title_full | Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years |
| title_fullStr | Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years |
| title_full_unstemmed | Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years |
| title_short | Classifications for Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR): An Analysis of Their Use in Publications over the Last 15 Years |
| title_sort | classifications for proliferative vitreoretinopathy pvr an analysis of their use in publications over the last 15 years |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7807596 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT salvatoredilauro classificationsforproliferativevitreoretinopathypvrananalysisoftheiruseinpublicationsoverthelast15years AT mustafarkadhim classificationsforproliferativevitreoretinopathypvrananalysisoftheiruseinpublicationsoverthelast15years AT davidgcharteris classificationsforproliferativevitreoretinopathypvrananalysisoftheiruseinpublicationsoverthelast15years AT jcarlospastor classificationsforproliferativevitreoretinopathypvrananalysisoftheiruseinpublicationsoverthelast15years |