ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2012
Comparison of different treatment intervals between bevacizumab injection and photodynamic therapy in combined therapy for age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2012. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanotechnology for cancer treatment.Nanotechnology reviews · 2015Article
- Two-year results of reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy combined with intravitreal ranibizumab for typical age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the results of combination therapy with different intervals between intravitreal bevacizumab and photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for age-related macular degeneration.
methodsTreatment-naïve eyes (n = 184) with 12 months' follow-up were included in this retrospective case series. Eyes were classified according to the interval between bevacizumab and PDT administration: group D1, 1-day interval (n = 116); group D7, 7-day interval (n = 68). The study was conducted at two hospitals, with group D1 evaluated in one hospital and group D7 evaluated in the other. The main outcome measure was comparison of the increases in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of the two groups 3 and 12 months after the initial treatment by means of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
resultsGroup D1 gained 1.3 lines and group D7 gained 1.5 lines of BCVA at 3 months; group D1 gained 0.8 lines and group D7 gained 1.4 lines at 12 months. There was a significant difference between the groups in the increased BCVA levels at 3 months (P = 0.0450) and a trend toward significance at 12 months (P = 0.0516). ANCOVA analysis revealed that baseline BCVA, hemorrhagic pigment epithelial detachment, subretinal fluid, lesion size, and a 7-day treatment interval were significantly correlated with the increase in the BCVA at 3 months.
conclusionsA 7-day treatment interval might offer slightly better visual acuity gain in the short term than a 1-day interval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.