Abstract
Purpose Predicting response to intravitreal therapy in DME has become a challenging task. Individual studies have shown that HRS could be a reliable biomarker. This systematic review aimed to determine if there was a quantitative reduction in hyperreflective spots (HRS) following intravitreal therapy in diabetic macular edema (DME), if the type of intravitreal therapy (anti-VEGF versus steroid) had differential effects on quantitative HRS change and finally, if HRS at the start of therapy was associated with improvement in visual acuity (VA) or reduction in central macular thickness (CMT). We also aimed at bringing out the lacunae in the existing literature on HRS in DME and propose goals for future studies.
Methods PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL, Wiley online and Web of Science were searched based on MOOSE guidelines for non-randomized studies evaluating HRS as a biomarker in DME (between 1st January 2011 and 1st July 2020). Publication bias was analyzed using Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test and funnel plots. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model.
Results A total of 1168 eyes from 19 studies were eligible for inclusion. Pooled standardized mean differences showed that intravitreal therapy was associated with a reduction in quantitative HRS (z=-6.3, CI95%=-1.09 to −0.55, p<0.0001). Extreme between-study heterogeneity was observed (I2=93.2%) with significant publication bias. There was no difference in outcomes between anti-VEGF and steroid therapies (p=0.23). No definite conclusions could be drawn regarding the predictive value of HRS in determining the final VA and CMT.
Conclusion This review could conclude that there is a definite reduction in quantitative HRS following either form of intravitreal therapy. Our conclusion about the role of HRS in predicting visual outcome and CMT change was limited by the number of analyzable studies owing to the wide variation in the study designs, methods and reporting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was recieved for this work
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All India Institute of MEdical Sciences, Mangalagiri
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
No funding has been received for this work.
None of the authors has any conflicting interests or proprietary interests to disclose.
Data Availability
This is a meta-analysis
