Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495075›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

V Sivagnanavel, J R Evans, Z Ockrim, V Chong

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01833325 (A Pilot Study to Assess the Safety of Proton Therapy for Subfoveal Neovascularization Associated With Age-Related Macular Degeneration), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01833325 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

A Pilot Study to Assess the Safety of Proton Therapy for Subfoveal Neovascularization Associated With Age-Related Macular Degeneration

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of FloridaRan2013 to 2018Enrolled9ConditionsAge-Related Macular DegenerationArmsProton radiation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laser photocoagulation for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

V Sivagnanavel
J R Evans
Z Ockrim
V Chong
King's College Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Alexandra Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiotherapy has been proposed as a treatment to prevent new vessel growth in people with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

objectivesThe aim of this review was to examine the effects of radiotherapy on neovascular AMD. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group trials register) on The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (1980 to June 2004) and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (May 2004). We also wrote to investigators of trials included in the review to ask if they were aware of any other studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials in which radiotherapy was compared to another treatment, sham treatment, low dosage irradiation or no treatment in people with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation secondary to AMD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Relative risks were combined using a random effects model. The percentage of the variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity, rather than sampling error, was estimated using I2. MAIN

resultsEleven trials randomising a total of 1078 people were included in this review. All trials used a similar method of delivering the radiotherapy treatment (external beam). Dosage ranged from 7.5 to 24 Gy. Most trials found effects (not always significant) that favoured treatment. However, there was considerable inconsistency in the results between trials (I2 > 50%). As only 11 trials were included in the review and only some of these trials provided data for each outcome our ability to determine the causes of the heterogeneity between trials was limited. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any statistically significant interactions although with small numbers of trials in each subgroup (range two to four) this was not surprising. There was some indication that trials with no sham irradiation reported a greater effect of treatment as did trials with a greater percentage of participants with classic choroidal neovascularisation. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThis review currently does not provide evidence that external beam radiotherapy is an effective treatment for neovascular AMD. If further trials are to be considered to evaluate radiotherapy in AMD then adequate masking of the control group must be considered. Given the recent evidence that most lesions are amenable to treatment with photodynamic therapy if identified at a small lesion size, trials evaluating radiotherapy against photodynamic therapy are warranted.

Indexed as

EyeHumansMacular DegenerationRadiation InjuriesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15495075
OpenAlexW4230906879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.