Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 150 of the 150 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Central serous chorioretinopathy: Towards an evidence-based treatment guideline

Open access
van Rijssen, Thomas J., van Dijk, Elon H.C., Yzer, Suzanne, Ohno-Matsui, Kyoko, Keunen, Jan E.E., Schlingemann, Reinier O., Sivaprasad, Sobha, Querques, Giuseppe, Downes, Susan M., Fauser, Sascha, Hoyng, Carel B., Piccolino, Felice Cardillo, Chhablani, Jay K., Lai, Timothy Y.Y., Lotery, Andrew J., Larsen, Michael, Holz, Frank G., Freund, K. Bailey, Yannuzzi, Lawrence A., Boon, Camiel J.F.·2019·Progress in Retinal and Eye Research

Abstract

Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is a common cause of central vision loss, primarily affecting men 20-60 years of age. To date, no consensus has been reached regarding the classification of CSC, and a wide variety of interventions have been proposed, reflecting the controversy associated with treating this disease. The recent publication of appropriately powered randomised controlled trials such as the PLACE trial, as well as large retrospective, non-randomised treatment studies regarding the treatment of CSC suggest the feasibility of a more evidence-based approach when considering treatment options. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current rationale and evidence with respect to the variety of interventions available for treating CSC, including pharmacology, laser treatment, and photodynamic therapy. In addition, we describe the complexity of CSC, the challenges associated with treating CSC, and currently ongoing studies. Many treatment strategies such as photodynamic therapy using verteporfin, oral mineralocorticoid antagonists, and micropulse laser treatment have been reported as being effective. Currently, however, the available evidence suggests that half-dose (or half-fluence) photodynamic therapy should be the treatment of choice in chronic CSC, whereas observation may be the preferred approach in acute CSC. Nevertheless, exceptions can be considered based upon patient-specific characteristics.

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.preteyeres.2019.07.003

Cites

150 of 150 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

Cites

Show all 150 references

Metadata

Authors
van Rijssen, T. J., van Dijk, E. H. C., Yzer, S., Ohno-Matsui, K., Keunen, J. E. E., Schlingemann, R. O., Sivaprasad, S., Querques, G., Downes, S. M., Fauser, S., Hoyng, C. B., Piccolino, F. C., Chhablani, J. K., Lai, T. Y. Y., Lotery, A. J., Larsen, M., Holz, F. G., Freund, K. B., Yannuzzi, L. A., & Boon, C. J. F.
Venue
Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
73
Pages
100770
ISSN
1350-9462 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2958114009
Cited by
478
References
150
FWCI
42.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Central serous chorioretinopathy: Towards an evidence-based treatment guideline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.003
The paper
van Rijssen, T. J., van Dijk, E. H. C., Yzer, S., Ohno-Matsui, K., Keunen, J. E. E., Schlingemann, R. O., Sivaprasad, S., Querques, G., Downes, S. M., Fauser, S., Hoyng, C. B., Piccolino, F. C., Chhablani, J. K., Lai, T. Y. Y., Lotery, A. J., Larsen, M., Holz, F. G., Freund, K. B., Yannuzzi, L. A., & Boon, C. J. F. (2019). Central serous chorioretinopathy: Towards an evidence-based treatment guideline. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.003

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.