Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24614146›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in ophthalmology2014

Age-related Eye Disease Study 2: perspectives, recommendations, and unanswered questions.

Mary E Aronow, Emily Y Chew

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04676126 (Augmented Macular Pigment Supplement and Pericentral Visual Function), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

NCT04676126 phase4withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Augmented Macular Pigment Supplement and Pericentral Visual Function: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of the Incarnate WordRan2021 to 2022Enrolled0ConditionsGlaucoma, Glaucoma Eye, Glaucoma, Open-AngleArmsLumega-Z, Dorzolamide Hcl 2% Oph Soln, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. RPE65 takes on another role in the vertebrate retina.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary E AronowDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Emily Y Chew
National Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Medical Retina FellowshipZIEEY000487 · NEI · NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE · PI KEENAN, TIARNAN · 2009 to 2025
$6.6M
The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2)ZIAEY000485 · NEI · NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE · PI CHEW, EMILY Y · 2009 to 2015
$990k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 EY999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA EY000485Intramural NIH HHS ZIE EY000487NEI NIH HHS N01-EY-5-0007PHS HHS HHS-N-260-2005-00007-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review provides a perspective on the Age-related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) including a summary of the goals and rationale of the study, major findings, subsequent management recommendations, and questions that remain to be answered. RECENT

findingsThe primary goal of the AREDS2 was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lutein plus zeaxanthin and/or omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated acid supplementation in reducing the risk of developing advanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD). AREDS2 also investigated the effects of omitting β-carotene and reducing the concentration of zinc from the original AREDS formulation. Although primary analysis from the AREDS2 did not reveal a benefit of daily supplementation with lutein/zeaxanthin on AMD progression, secondary exploratory analyses suggested that lutein/zeaxanthin were helpful in reducing this risk. Comparison of low-dose to higher-dose zinc showed no significant benefit. SUMMARY: The overall evidence on the beneficial and adverse effects from AREDS2 and other studies suggests that lutein/zeaxanthin could be more appropriate than β-carotene in AREDS-type supplements. Questions remain regarding the AREDS2 study results such as: whether the findings are generalizable to the population as a whole, what is the long-term safety profile of lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation, should other carotenoids be included in AREDS-type supplements, and at what optimal doses?

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsDisease ProgressionDocosahexaenoic AcidsDrug Therapy, CombinationFatty Acids, Omega-3HumansLuteinMacular DegenerationTreatment OutcomeVisual AcuityXanthophyllsZeaxanthinsZinc CompoundsDocosahexaenoic AcidsFatty Acids, Omega-3LuteinXanthophyllsZeaxanthinsZinc Compounds

Identifiers

PMID24614146
PMCPMC4096000
OpenAlexW1994887552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.