ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2014
Spontaneous or secondary to intravitreal injections of anti-angiogenic agents retinal pigment epithelial tears in age-related macular degeneration.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of early RPE cell junction loss on VEGF, Ang-2, and TIMP secretion in vitro.Molecular vision · 2023Article
- Risk factors for an atherothrombotic event in patients with diabetic macular edema treated with intravitreal injections of bevacizumab.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Physical disruption of cell-cell contact induces VEGF expression in RPE cells.Molecular vision · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the visual function evolution of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) tears in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) according to type of occurrence [spontaneous or secondary to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection] and the topographic location of the tear after a two-year follow-up period.
methodsA total of 15 eyes of 14 patients with RPE tears in exudative AMD were analyzed retrospectively at the University Eye Clinic of Trieste. Inclusion criteria were: patient age of 50 or older with AMD and RPE tears both spontaneous occurring or post anti-VEGF treatment. Screening included: careful medical history, complete ophthalmological examination, fluorescein angiography (FA), indocyanine green angiography (ICG), autofluorescence and infrared imaging and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Patients were evaluated every month for visual acuity (VA), fundus examination and OCT. Other data reported were: presence of PED, number of injections before the tear, location of the lesion.
resultsMean follow-up was 24wk (SD±4wk). A total of 15 eyes were studied for RPE tear. In 6 cases (40%), the RPE tears occurred within two years of anti-VEGF injections the others occurred spontaneously. In 13 cases (86.6%), the RPE tear was associated with pigment epithelial detachment (PED). In 7 cases (46.6%), the RPE tear occurred in the central area of the retina and involved the fovea. Two lesions were found in the parafoveal region, six in the extra-macular area. In all cases visual acuity decreased at the end of the follow-up period (P<0.01) independently of the type or the topographical location of the lesion.
conclusionRPE tear occurs in exudative AMD as a spontaneous complication or in relation to anti-VEGF injections. Visual acuity decreased significantly and gradually in the follow-up period in all cases. No correlation was found between visual loss and the type of onset or the topographic location of the tears.
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.