Global Research Status Regarding Uveitis in the Last Decade

To provide an overview on global uveitis research in the last decade in terms of countries/regions, organizations, scholars, journals, trending topics, and fundings. This cross-sectional bibliometric analysis yielded 10656 uveitis publications in English for subsequent bibliometric analysis. In terms of the number of publications, the leading country/region was the USA (3007). The most productive organization was the University College London (420). The most productive research team was Professor Yang’s group (146). A higher h-index was noted in University College London (48). Professor Rosenbaum was the first h-index holder (32). Keywords of interest included topics such as biologics, COVID and OCT. Publications by Ocular Immunology and Inflammation (968) ranked the first position. The USA is the leading force in uveitis study. Asian countries/regions, such as China (mainland) and India, are exerting a substantial role worldwide. Trendy topics cover COVID-19, OCTA.</p

Revealing Academic Evolution and Frontier Pattern in the Field of Uveitis Using Bibliometric Analysis, Natural Language Processing, and Machine Learning

Numerous uveitis articles were published in this century, underneath which hides valuable intelligence. We aimed to characterize the evolution and patterns in this field. We divided the 15,994 uveitis papers into four consecutive time periods for bibliometric analysis, and applied latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling and machine learning techniques to the latest period.  The yearly publication pattern fitted the curve: 1.21335x2 − 4,848.95282x + 4,844,935.58876 (R2 = 0.98311). The USA, the most productive country/region, focused on topics like ankylosing spondylitis and biologic therapy, whereas China (mainland) focused on topics like OCT and Behcet disease. The logistic regression showed the highest accuracy (71.6%) in the test set. In this century, a growing number of countries/regions/authors/journals are involved in the uveitis study, promoting the scientific output and thematic evolution. Our pioneering study uncovers the evolving academic trends and frontier patterns in this field using bibliometric analysis and AI algorithms.</p

Data_Sheet_1_Optical Coherence Tomographic Features and Prognostic Values of Macular Edema in Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada Disease.docx

Purpose: To determine optical coherence tomographic (OCT) features of macular edema (ME) and identify potential prognostic values for ME and visual outcomes in Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH).Methods: In the retrospective case series, a total of 1,377 VKH patients who were seen in a tertiary uveitis center between September 2011 and January 2018 were reviewed on their demographics, visual acuity, ocular and extraocular manifestations, modes of treatment, and OCT examinations. Of these patients, 79 (5.7%) having ME were included for analysis of OCT features. Four patients were missed without ME resolution, and the remaining 75 patients who either had ME resolved or were followed up for 2 years were included for analysis of disease outcomes.Results: Of the 115 affected eyes in these 79 patients, 100 (87.0%) had cystoid ME (CME), accounting for the most common OCT feature of VKH-related ME. Disruption of the inner-segment/outer-segment junction (IS/OS) band seen in 33 (28.7%) affected eyes of 24 (30.4%) patients was found as a risk factor for the development of persistent ME [10 of 62 (16.1%) vs. 13 of 13 (100%); P Conclusions: Intraretinal cystoid changes are most commonly seen in the edematous macula of VKH patients. Disruption of the IS/OS band is a useful risk sign for poor ME and visual outcomes in VKH-related ME, and a long-term well-controlled intraocular inflammation may be critical for the resolution of refractory cases.</p

Table2_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.DOCX

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Table5_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.docx

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image3_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.TIF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Table3_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.DOCX

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image1_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.PDF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image2_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.PDF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p

Image4_Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Intravitreal Therapeutic Agents for Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.TIF

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of advanced intravitreal therapeutic regimens, including a dexamethasone implant at 350 and 700 μg; a fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant, 0.2 µg/day, 0.59 and 2.1 mg; intravitreal bevacizumab, 1.25 mg; intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg; intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA), 2 and 4 mg; and standard of care (SOC, systemic therapy) for noninfectious uveitis.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov until April 2021 with 13 RCTs (1806 participants) identified and conducted a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.Results: No specific regimen showed a statistically significant advantage or disadvantage to another treatment regimen with regard to efficacy. However, the FA implant, 0.59 mg was associated with a higher risk of cataract (RR 4.41, 95% CI 1.51–13.13) and raise in intraocular pressure (IOP) (RR 2.53 95% CI 1.14–6.25) compared with SOC at 24 months. IVTA, 4 mg at 6 months was associated with lower risk of IOP rising compared with FA implant, 0.2 µg/day at 36 months (RR 3.43 95% CI 1.12–11.35).Conclusion: No intravitreal therapeutic regimens showed a significant advantage or disadvantage with regard to efficacy. However, SOC was associated with lower risk of side effects compared with FA implants. IVTA, 4 mg, might be the best choice with lowest risk of IOP rising.Systematic Review Registration:clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020172953</p