Laser showdown: which pulse setting saves sight best?
NCT ID NCT07266597
First seen Jun 25, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026 · Updated 1 time
Summary
This study tests two different laser pulse settings (5% vs 15% duty cycle) in 50 adults with diabetic macular edema, a common cause of vision loss in diabetes. The goal is to see which setting is safer and more effective at reducing retinal swelling. Participants must have mild to moderate vision loss and no prior laser or injection treatments.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.
- Active substance
- micropulse laser photocoagulation
- What this could lead to
- If this works, it could point toward a safer, more effective laser setting to control diabetic macular edema and preserve vision.
- What could go wrong
- This is a small, early-stage trial with only 50 participants. It compares two laser settings, not a new treatment, so the impact may be modest. Risks include potential vision loss or lack of improvement.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Phase
-
Not a phased trial
Phase numbers describe drug development. The registry uses this when they do not apply, as it does for trials of devices, procedures or behaviour changes, and for observational studies.
- Participants
-
About 50 people
The number the study aims to enrol. It can still change while the study runs.
- Expected to start
-
Nov 2025
An estimate. Start dates often move.
- Expected to finish
-
Feb 2027
An estimate. End dates often move.
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
- Ages
-
18 years and older
- Sex
-
Anyone
- Healthy volunteers
-
Not accepted
This study is not open to healthy volunteers. The entry requirements below say who it is open to.
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
Inclusion Criteria: Patients with diabetic retinopathy who: * Are More than 18 years old . * have diabetic macular edema with a central retinal thickness \< 400 um . * have best corrected visual acuity between 6/18 and 6/60 . Exclusion Criteria: * Previous lasered retina , Anti - VEGF injection or vitrectomy . * Extensive Macular ischemia on FFA . * Media opacity . * Associated ocular pathology as glaucoma, CNV (choroidal neovascularization ) , AMD (age related macular degenerations ), epiretinal membrane vitreomacular traction and retinal vein occlusion .
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Diabetic macular edema are added.
Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor
Conditions
The condition(s) this trial relates to.
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
How to take part
Only the study team decides who joins. These are the ways to reach them.
-
The official record
ClinicalTrials.gov lists the study team's own contact details, including names and phone numbers. We don't republish those.
-
A doctor treating you
A doctor who knows your case can contact a study site on your behalf, and can tell you whether this study is worth pursuing at all.
More trials for these conditions
Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.
- The 20-Minute squeeze: how eye injections push pressure up
- Could years of eye injections weigh down the upper eyelid?
- Eye implant takes aim at diabetic macular edema
- Can a single gene therapy injection ease diabetic macular edema?
- Can a new eye injection preserve vision in south asians with diabetes?
- Could a biosimilar eye injection offer a new way to treat diabetic macular edema?