Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 548

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide and Focal/Grid Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema

Open access
·2008·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1 mg and 4 mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone in comparison with focal/grid photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). Design Multi-center randomized clinical trial Participants 840 study eyes of 693 subjects with DME involving the fovea and visual acuity 20/40 to 20/320 Methods Eyes were randomized to focal/grid photocoagulation (N=330), 1 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (N=256), or 4 mg intravitreal triamcinolone (N=254). Retreatment was given for persistent or new edema at 4-month intervals. The primary outcome was at 2 years. Main Outcome Measures Visual acuity measured with the Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS) method (primary), optical coherence tomography (OCT)-measured retinal thickness (secondary), and safety. Results At 4 months, mean visual acuity was better in the 4 mg triamcinolone group than in either the laser group (P<0.001) or the 1 mg triamcinolone group (P=0.001). By 1 year, there were no significant differences among groups in mean visual acuity. At the 16-month visit and extending through the primary outcome visit at 2 years, mean visual acuity was better in the laser group than in the other two groups (at 2 years, P=0.02 comparing the laser and 1 mg groups, P=0.002 comparing the laser and 4 mg groups, and P=0.49 comparing the 1mg and 4 mg groups). Treatment group differences in the visual acuity outcome could not be attributed solely to cataract formation. OCT results generally paralleled the visual acuity results. Intraocular pressure was increased from baseline by ≥10 mm Hg at any visit in 4%, 16%, and 33% of eyes in the three treatment groups, respectively, and cataract surgery was performed in 13%, 23%, and 51% of eyes in the three treatment groups, respectively. Conclusions Over a 2-year period, focal/grid photocoagulation is more effective and has fewer side effects than 1 mg or 4 mg doses of preservative-free intravitreal triamcinolone for most patients with DME who have characteristics similar to the cohort in this clinical trial. The results of this study also support that focal/grid photocoagulation currently should be the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials of DME.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.06.015

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 548

Metadata

Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
115
Issue
9
Pages
1447-1459.e10
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2805868637
Cited by
548
References
2
FWCI
58.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide and Focal/Grid Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.06.015
The paper
A Randomized Trial Comparing Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide and Focal/Grid Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema. (2008). Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.06.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.