SynthesisDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2009
[Rheopheresis for age-related macular degeneration].
Synthesis in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study evaluating the efficacy of Rheopheresis for dry age-related macular degeneration. Dry AMD treatment with Rheopheresis Trial-ART.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2009Trial
- Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?Ophthalmology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Austria, Rheopheresis for non-exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has been proposed for inclusion into the benefit catalogue. Decisions on the inclusion of new medical interventions in reimbursement schemes or benefit catalogues are increasingly based on systematic reviews of clinical studies and their patient-relevant results. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic literature search in five databases identified two randomised clinical trials (RCTs). A systematic analysis of the evidence based on the critical appraisal of the RCTs was carried out.
resultsBoth RCTs, having a total of 238 included patients, show that to date, evidence for the effectiveness of Rheopheresis for AMD is not available, and predictions for exact indications cannot be made. The bigger RCT showed no effect at all, and the smaller one showed a small effect with questionable clinical relevance.
conclusionAvailable clinical data suggest considering Rheopheresis an experimental intervention. Its inclusion in the benefit catalogue is not recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18491113What OpenQuestion holds
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.