ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2014
Meta-analysis of best corrected visual acuity after treatment for myopic choroidal neovascularisation.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyperreflective Material in Optical Coherence Tomography Images of Eyes with Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization May Affect the Visual Outcome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF RANIBIZUMAB TREATMENT OF MYOPIC CHOROIDAL NEOVASCULARIZATION IN EAST-ASIAN PATIENTS FROM THE RADIANCE STUDY.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2018Article
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
aimTo compare the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between Verteporfin with photodynamic therapy (PDT) and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV).
methodPublished literature from Medline, Premedline, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until November 2013 were retrieved. All studies evaluating the BCVA between Verteporfin with PDT and intravitreal anti-VEGF for myopic CNV were included. The results were pooled using mean difference (MD), a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsFinally, five studies enrolled 349 eyes were included in the meta-analysis. We inferred that the BCVA of myopic CNV after the treatment of anti-VEGF was significantly better compared with Verteporfin with PDT (MD=0.25, 95%CI:0.17-0.33, Z=5.97, P<0.00001).
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that intravitreal anti-VEGF could have a better BCVA after treatment than Verteporfin with PDT for myopic CNV.
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.