Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24790885›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2014

Comparison of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiao-Yu Zhang, Xiao-Fan Guo, Shao-Dan Zhang, Jing-Na He, Cao-Yu Sun, Yin Zou, Han-Si Bi, Yang Qu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao-Yu ZhangDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Xiao-Fan GuoDepartment of Cardiology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, Liaoning Province, China.
Shao-Dan ZhangDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Jing-Na HeDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Cao-Yu SunDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Yin ZouDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Han-Si BiDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Yang QuDepartment of Ophthalmology, the Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang, Shenyang 110031, Liaoning Province, China.
Shenyang The Fourth Hospital of People · CNChina Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the effectiveness and safety between bevacizumab and ranibizumab in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsWe performed a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, case-control and cohort studies that compared bevacizumab and ranibizumab using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. After the related data were extracted by two investigators independently, pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects or a fixed-effects model.

resultsA total of four RCTs involving 1927 patients and eleven retrospective case series involving 2296 patients were included. For the primary outcomes, no significant differences were found between ranibizumab group and bevacizumab group in visual acuity (WMD: -0.04; 95%CI: -0.08 to 0.00; P=0.06), best corrected visual acuity (WMD: -0.05; 95%CI: -0.10 to 0.00; P=0.05), retina thickness (WMD: -4.69; 95%CI: -13.15 to 3.76; P=0.86) and foveal thickness (WMD: 10.91; 95%CI: -14.73 to 36.56; P=0.40). The pooled analyses in the evaluation of safety showed that compared to bevacizumab, ranibizumab was associated with decreased risks of ocular inflammation (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.89; P=0.02) and venous thrombotic events (RR: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.89; P=0.03). However, there were no significant differences observed in deaths (P=0.69) and arterial thromboembolic events (P=0.71) between the two groups.

conclusionWith equal clinical efficacy, ranibizumab was found to be associated with less adverse events compared to bevacizumab, indicating that ranibizumab might be a safer management.

Indexed as

age-related macular degenerationbevacizumabranibizumab

Identifiers

PMID24790885
PMCPMC4003097
OpenAlexW201260880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.