Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat›Epiretinal Membrane

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Epiretinal Membrane

Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

A membrane on the vitreal surface of the retina resulting from the proliferation of one or more of three retinal elements: (1) fibrous astrocytes; (2) fibrocytes; and (3) retinal pigment epithelium.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,004 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A membrane on the vitreal surface of the retina resulting from the proliferation of one or more of three retinal elements: (1) fibrous astrocytes; (2) fibrocytes; and (3) retinal pigment epithelium. Localized epiretinal membranes may occur at the posterior pole of the eye without clinical signs or may cause marked loss of vision as a result of covering, distorting, or detaching the fovea centralis. Epiretinal membranes may cause vascular leakage and secondary retinal edema. In younger individuals some membranes appear to be developmental in origin and occur in otherwise normal eyes. The majority occur in association with retinal holes, ocular concussions, retinal inflammation, or after ocular surgery. (Newell, Ophthalmology: Principles and Concepts, 7th ed, p291)

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Epiretinal Membranes; Membrane, Epiretinal; Epimacular Membrane; Epimacular Membranes; Membrane, Epimacular; Cellophane Maculopathy; Cellophane Maculopathies; Maculopathy, Cellophane.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Retinal Diseases

Related concepts

  • Retinal Pigment Epithelium
  • Fovea Centralis
  • Retinal Holes

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 3,271 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Epiretinal Membrane” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 1,060 of them (32.4%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 1,379 records.

Reviews account for 181 records (5.5%) and meta-analyses for 39. Randomized controlled trials number 104 (3.2%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 25 records; 2000-2009: 807 records; 2010-2019: 1,379 records; 2020 onward: 1,060 records25through 19998072000-20091,3792010-20191,0602020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199925
2000-2009807
2010-20191,379
2020 onward1,060
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 5.5 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.2 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 3.2 percentReviews5.5% (181)Meta-analyses1.2% (39)Randomized controlled trials3.2% (104)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 3,271 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews1815.5%
Meta-analyses391.2%
Randomized controlled trials1043.2%

Method: PubMed query "Epiretinal Membrane"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in eye, ear, nose and throat

Eye, hearing, nose and throat studies rely on specialist tests (visual acuity, eye pressure, audiograms, scopes) and on patient-reported symptoms, which vary between people and with age. Some conditions improve without treatment, so comparison groups matter. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; sudden loss of sight or hearing needs urgent care from a qualified clinician. Check how the outcome was tested, the age of the people studied and how long they were followed.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis
Yuan J, Zhang LL, Lu YJ, Han MY, Yu AH, Cai XJ
2017Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
46cc by
PMID 29179705 · DOI · PMC5704533
Comparative efficacy evaluation of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Shen Y, Lin X, Zhang L, Wu M
2020Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
42cc by
PMID 31914954 · DOI · PMC6950886
27-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy day surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane
Naruse S, Shimada H, Mori R
2017Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
34cc by
PMID 29017460 · DOI · PMC5634846
Spontaneous epiretinal membrane resolution: mechanisms, outcomes, and implications for clinical management
Quarta A, Ruggeri ML, Tartaro R, Toto L, Mastropasqua R
2025Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
8cc by
PMID 40163179 · DOI · PMC12414067

Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis [1]

Meta-analysis Yuan J, Zhang LL, Lu YJ, Han MY, Yu AH, Cai XJ · · 2017 · cited 46 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundTo evaluate the effects on vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus vitrectomy with inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment (MHRD).
Closing excerpt
19; P ConclusionCompared with ILM peeling, vitrectomy with inverted ILM flap technique resulted significantly higher of the rate of retinal reattachment and macular hole closure, but seemed does not improve postoperative best-corrected visual acuity.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (186 words)

BackgroundTo evaluate the effects on vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus vitrectomy with inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment (MHRD).MethodsPubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched for studies that compared ILM peeling with inverted ILM flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment. The primary outcomes are the rate of retinal reattachment and the rate of macular hole closure 6 months later after initial surgery, the secondary outcome is the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 6 months later after initial surgery.ResultsFour studies that included 98 eyes were selected. All the included studies were retrospective comparative studies. The preoperative best-corrected visual acuity was equal between ILM peeling and inverted ILM flap technique groups. It was indicated that the rate of retinal reattachment (odds ratio (OR) = 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.03 to 0.69; P = 0.02) and macular hole closure (OR = 0.06, 95% CI:0.02 to 0.19; P ConclusionCompared with ILM peeling, vitrectomy with inverted ILM flap technique resulted significantly higher of the rate of retinal reattachment and macular hole closure, but seemed does not improve postoperative best-corrected visual acuity.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29179705 · DOI · PMC5704533

Comparative efficacy evaluation of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]

Meta-analysis Shen Y, Lin X, Zhang L, Wu M · · 2020 · cited 42 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes (MH).
Closing excerpt
Flap technique also had a signifcant visual gain in the short term, but the limitations in visual recovery at a longer follow-up was found.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (241 words)

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes (MH).MethodsRelated studies were reviewed by searching electronic databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library. We searched for articles that compared inverted ILM flap technique with ILM peeling for large MH (> 400 μm). Double-arm meta-analysis was performed for the primary end point that was the rate of MH closure, and the secondary end point was postoperative visual acuity (VA). Heterogeneity, publication bias, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to guarantee the statistical power.ResultsThis review included eight studies involving 593 eyes, 4 randomized control trials and 4 retrospective studies. After sensitivity analysis for eliminating the heterogeneity of primary outcome, the pooled data showed the rate of MH closure with inverted ILM flap technique group was statistically significantly higher than ILM peeling group (odds ratio (OR) = 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.89 to 8.27; P = 0.0003). At the follow-up duration of 3 months, postoperative VA was significantly better in the group of inverted ILM flap than ILM peeling (mean difference (MD) = - 0.16, 95% CI = - 0.23 to 0.09; P ConclusionVitrectomy with inverted ILM flap technique had a better anatomical outcome than ILM peeling. Flap technique also had a signifcant visual gain in the short term, but the limitations in visual recovery at a longer follow-up was found.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31914954 · DOI · PMC6950886

27-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy day surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane [3]

Research article Naruse S, Shimada H, Mori R · · 2017 · cited 34 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThis study compared the postoperative outcomes of 27-gauge (G) and 25-G vitrectomy performed for the treatment of idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM).
Closing excerpt
ConclusionsAlthough 27-G vitrectomy requires operation time of 4 min longer compared to 25-G vitrectomy for ERM surgery, using the 27-G system results in earlier recovery of visual acuity, CRT improvement and stabilized ocular pressure.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (365 words)

BackgroundThis study compared the postoperative outcomes of 27-gauge (G) and 25-G vitrectomy performed for the treatment of idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM).MethodsThe study design was single center, retrospective, interventional case series. Two hundred consecutive eyes that underwent primary vitrectomy for ERM (27-G vitrectomy in 100 eyes and 25-G vitrectomy in 100 eyes) were studied for 6 months. In all eyes, scleral tunnels were made using angle incisions, and air or gas exchange was performed.ResultsThere were no significant differences in age, spherical diopter power, as well as preoperative Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) score, central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure between the 27-G and 25-G groups. The proportions of simultaneous cataract surgery (27-G vs. 25-G: 82% vs. 90%), air-filled eyes (99% vs. 98%), and scleral wound suture at the end of surgery (0% vs. 0%) were not significantly different between two groups. The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly (P = 0.0322) longer by 4 min for 27-G (37 min) compared to 25-G (33 min) vitrectomy. Gain in ETDRS score was significantly (P = 0.0421) better in 27-G group (4.7 ± 8.1 letters) compared to 25-G group (1.1 ± 13.6 letters) at 1 month post-vitrectomy, but not significantly different at 3 and 6 months (P = 0.0835 and 0.0569, respectively). Decrease in CRT was significantly (P = 0.0354) greater in 27-G group (-24.2 ± 50.0 μm) compared to 25-G group (-8.0 ± 48.6 μm) at 1 month post-vitrectomy, but not significantly different at 3 and 6 months (P = 0.6059 and 0.1725, respectively). On postoperative day 1, hypotony (≤ 6 mmHg) was observed in 2 eyes in 27-G group and 6 eyes in 25-G group, while ocular hypertension (≥ 25 mmHg) was found in 4 eyes in 27-G group and 11 eyes in 25-G group, with no significant differences between two groups. Postoperative complications requiring treatment occurred in one eye (vitreous hemorrhage) in 27-G group, and in two eyes (vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment in one eye each) in 25-G group.ConclusionsAlthough 27-G vitrectomy requires operation time of 4 min longer compared to 25-G vitrectomy for ERM surgery, using the 27-G system results in earlier recovery of visual acuity, CRT improvement and stabilized ocular pressure.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29017460 · DOI · PMC5634846

Spontaneous epiretinal membrane resolution: mechanisms, outcomes, and implications for clinical management [4]

Review article Quarta A, Ruggeri ML, Tartaro R, Toto L, Mastropasqua R · · 2025 · cited 8 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeTo review the phenomenon of spontaneous epiretinal membrane (ERM) resolution focusing on the clinical settings, mechanisms of resolution, and implications for management.
Closing excerpt
These insights may guide future research into therapeutic approaches that mimic natural resolution mechanisms.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (212 words)

PurposeTo review the phenomenon of spontaneous epiretinal membrane (ERM) resolution focusing on the clinical settings, mechanisms of resolution, and implications for management.MethodsA comprehensive review of case reports and studies describing spontaneous ERM resolution was conducted. Data were extracted regarding ERM type, patient demographics, visual outcomes, and suspected mechanisms. Findings were analyzed to identify trends and to compare cases of spontaneous resolution across different ERM types.ResultsSpontaneous ERM resolution was more frequently observed in younger patients or cases associated with posterior vitreous detachment (PVD). In idiopathic ERMs, spontaneous separation often involved PVD and extracellular matrix remodeling. Inflammatory ERMs demonstrated resolution due to reduced inflammation and traction, while secondary ERMs linked to vascular or traumatic events benefited from mechanisms such as photocoagulation-induced PVD or gliotic contraction. Visual outcomes varied, with improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and metamorphopsia in most cases, though persistent structural changes occasionally limited functional recovery.ConclusionSpontaneous ERM resolution is a rare but clinically significant event influenced by vitreoretinal interface dynamics and patient-specific factors. Younger age, the presence of PVD, and underlying inflammatory or vascular conditions may contribute to natural resolution. Recognizing these cases allows for tailored management strategies supporting observation in selected patients while minimizing unnecessary surgical interventions. These insights may guide future research into therapeutic approaches that mimic natural resolution mechanisms.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40163179 · DOI · PMC12414067

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Internal limiting membrane removal in the management of full-thickness macular holes [5]
    Mester V, Kuhn F · Am J Ophthalmol · 2000 · cited 227 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Idiopathic epiretinal membrane [6]
    Bu SC, Kuijer R, Li XR, Hooymans JM, Los LI · Retina · 2014 · cited 203 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Idiopathic vitreomacular traction and macular hole: a comprehensive review of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment [7]
    Steel DH, Lotery AJ · Eye (Lond) · 2013 · cited 180 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Epiretinal membrane: A review [8]
    Fung AT, Galvin J, Tran T · Clin Exp Ophthalmol · 2021 · cited 177 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Involvement of Müller glial cells in epiretinal membrane formation [9]
    Bringmann A, Wiedemann P · Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol · 2009 · cited 146 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole [10]
    Spiteri Cornish K, Lois N, Scott NW, Burr J, Cook J, Boachie C, et al. · Ophthalmology · 2014 · cited 146 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Yuan J, Zhang LL, Lu YJ, Han MY, Yu AH, Cai XJ. Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. . 2017. PMID 29179705 · DOI · PMC5704533
  2. Shen Y, Lin X, Zhang L, Wu M. Comparative efficacy evaluation of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2020. PMID 31914954 · DOI · PMC6950886
  3. Naruse S, Shimada H, Mori R. 27-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy day surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. . 2017. PMID 29017460 · DOI · PMC5634846
  4. Quarta A, Ruggeri ML, Tartaro R, Toto L, Mastropasqua R. Spontaneous epiretinal membrane resolution: mechanisms, outcomes, and implications for clinical management. . 2025. PMID 40163179 · DOI · PMC12414067
  5. Mester V, Kuhn F. Internal limiting membrane removal in the management of full-thickness macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000. PMID 10926987 · DOI
  6. Bu SC, Kuijer R, Li XR, Hooymans JM, Los LI. Idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina. 2014. PMID 25360790 · DOI
  7. Steel DH, Lotery AJ. Idiopathic vitreomacular traction and macular hole: a comprehensive review of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Eye (Lond). 2013. PMID 24108069 · DOI · PMC3797995
  8. Fung AT, Galvin J, Tran T. Epiretinal membrane: A review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021. PMID 33656784 · DOI
  9. Bringmann A, Wiedemann P. Involvement of Müller glial cells in epiretinal membrane formation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID 19415318 · DOI
  10. Spiteri Cornish K, Lois N, Scott NW, Burr J, Cook J, Boachie C, et al.. Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole. Ophthalmology. 2014. PMID 24314837 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Retinal DystrophiesEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Retinal DetachmentEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Central Serous ChorioretinopathyEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Retinopathy of PrematurityEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Retinal Pigment EpitheliumAnatomy and Physiology
  • Macular DegenerationEye, Ear, Nose and Throat

All 51 articles in Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat →

At a glance

3,271
PubMed records on this heading
32%
published since 2020
181
review articles
104
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Retinal DystrophiesEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Retinal DetachmentEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Central Serous ChorioretinopathyEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Retinopathy of PrematurityEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Retinal Pigment EpitheliumAnatomy and Physiology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support