Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Diabetes Complications
Diabetic Retinopathy
Retinopathy can get anyone !!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="phoenix" data-source="post: 348217" data-attributes="member: 12578"><p>I did a bit of googling about the therapy described by post above.(trouble is it does sound like spam)</p><p>Short article with results of first clinical study here <a href="http://www.retinatoday.com/issues/0708/0708_18.pdfand" target="_blank">http://www.retinatoday.com/issues/0708/0708_18.pdfand</a> results of pilot trials here</p><p>UK:</p><p><a href="http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23023529" target="_blank">http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23023529</a></p><p>This one used the procedure on 23 consecutive patients and analysed the results.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Australia</p><p>This was a randomised trial comparing the results with existing treatment. ie to make sure that the results weren't inferior.</p><p>subjects:</p><p>20 eyes of 17 subjects in the retinal regeneration therapy group and 18 eyes of 14 subjects in the conventional group were analysed.</p><p>Results: (worth reading carefully, if I were affected I would get a copy of the full paper and ask an experts opinion)</p><p> When outliers were included in the dataset, the difference in retinal thickness reduction by analysis of covariance was 10.9 (standard deviation 17.6) mm in favour of the control laser. The difference between groups in retinal thickness reduction was 40.8 mm. If two extreme outliers were excluded, the difference was 5.6 (standard deviation 14.2) mm in favour of the retinal regeneration therapy laser, and the D optical coherence tomography was 18.5 mm. The visual acuity difference between groups was 0.059, meeting non-inferiority requirements.</p><p>Conclusions: Although retinal thickness reduction was not unambiguously non-inferior, in the short-term, retinal regeneration therapy approximates the clinical efficacy of conventional photocoagulation, stabilizing visual acuity and providing motivation for larger trials <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22300292" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22300292</a></p><p> </p><p>These papers were both published in 2012 </p><p></p><p>Interesting and sounds promising but both papers call for further trials and I assume from the above post that the treatment is not yet available on the NHS , the hospital is a private one.(though the UK researchers held posts at Moorfields and KCH ) .</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="phoenix, post: 348217, member: 12578"] I did a bit of googling about the therapy described by post above.(trouble is it does sound like spam) Short article with results of first clinical study here [url=http://www.retinatoday.com/issues/0708/0708_18.pdfand]http://www.retinatoday.com/issues/0708/0708_18.pdfand[/url] results of pilot trials here UK: [url=http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23023529]http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23023529[/url] This one used the procedure on 23 consecutive patients and analysed the results. Australia This was a randomised trial comparing the results with existing treatment. ie to make sure that the results weren't inferior. subjects: 20 eyes of 17 subjects in the retinal regeneration therapy group and 18 eyes of 14 subjects in the conventional group were analysed. Results: (worth reading carefully, if I were affected I would get a copy of the full paper and ask an experts opinion) When outliers were included in the dataset, the difference in retinal thickness reduction by analysis of covariance was 10.9 (standard deviation 17.6) mm in favour of the control laser. The difference between groups in retinal thickness reduction was 40.8 mm. If two extreme outliers were excluded, the difference was 5.6 (standard deviation 14.2) mm in favour of the retinal regeneration therapy laser, and the D optical coherence tomography was 18.5 mm. The visual acuity difference between groups was 0.059, meeting non-inferiority requirements. Conclusions: Although retinal thickness reduction was not unambiguously non-inferior, in the short-term, retinal regeneration therapy approximates the clinical efficacy of conventional photocoagulation, stabilizing visual acuity and providing motivation for larger trials [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22300292]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22300292[/url] These papers were both published in 2012 Interesting and sounds promising but both papers call for further trials and I assume from the above post that the treatment is not yet available on the NHS , the hospital is a private one.(though the UK researchers held posts at Moorfields and KCH ) . [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Diabetes Complications
Diabetic Retinopathy
Retinopathy can get anyone !!
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…