Efficacy of Purtscher’s Retinopathy Treatments: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of available Purtscher’s Retinopathy treatments.

Materials and Methods: In order to collect single-case reports, electronic searches were conducted in several databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, VIP, and WanFang in the Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. In VIP and Wanfang, we also traced the references of included articles. Risk of bias was evaluated using a tool adapted from the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Statistical analysis was done in SPSS19.0. Evidence was evaluated and graded with GRADE system.

Results: In total, 76 studies were included involving 88 cases and 139 eyes. Serious bias existed in 90% of the included studies. Current treatments for Purtscher’s retinopathy included glucocorticoid therapy (63.29%), traditional Chinese medicine therapy (10.13%), glucocorticoid integrative medicine therapy (7.60%), and integrative medicine therapy (6.33%). Patients’ eyesight with (56.83%) or without (43.17%) treatment both improved in the follow-up within 1–3 months, 4–6 months, and more than 6 months; however, conditions without treatment became better compared to the treatment groups in after 4–6 months and more than 6 months. All results were “very low” in the GRADE system. None of the studies reported adverse reactions in any patient.

Conclusions: Both treatment and no treatment improve vision in Purtscher’s retinopathy patients, but the difference between no treatment and glucocorticoid therapy had no statistical significance. The evidence quality for this conclusion was “very low” and had large bias. Further research is required to understand the safety of Purtscher’s retinopathy treatment.

KEYWORDS:

• Case report
• GRADE
• Purtscher’s retinopathy
• rare disease
• systematic review

Acknowledgments

We thank Siqi Fu, Rongrong Cui, Peiyu Zhang, and Rui Li for extracting data. Enping Yang, Zhi Yi (Mikevier PharmaScience Co. Ltd), and Janne Estill (Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland) and Catherine Budd (Editorbar Language Editing, Beijing, China) for providing assistance with editing the final manuscript.

Funding

No support in any type for this study was received.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflict of interests. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Duosheng Xia

Duosheng Xia, Xiaomei Chen, and Wenfang Zhang contributed to the concept and design of the study and data analysis. Qi Zhou, Shujun Xiao, and Yang Yu collected the data and revised the article. Yadong Wang, Gang Du, and Haixiang Huang contributed to the draft and critical revision of the article. Yaolong Chen contributed to GRADE rating process. All authors contributed to the interpretation of study data and critically reviewed and approved the manuscript before submission.