ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2014
Comparison of intravitreal bevacizumab with macular photocoagulation for treatment of diabetic macular edema: a systemic review and Meta-analysis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diabetic Macular Edema in Turkey: A Real-Life Registry Study-TURK-DEM.Journal of ophthalmology · 2017Article
- Macular laser photocoagulation with or without intravitreal triamcinolone pretreatment for diabetic macular edema: a result from five randomized controlled trials.International journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
- Outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab and macular photocoagulation for treatment of diabetic macular edema in a tertiary care eye hospital, Karachi.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Alone laser versus bevacizumab plus laser for diffuse diabetic macular edema (ALBA randomized trial).Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo further evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus macular photocoagulation (MPC) in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) by Meta-analysis.
methodsPertinent publications were identified through systemic searches of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 30 November, 2013. Changes in central macular thickness (CMT) in µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logMAR equivalents were extracted at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24mo after initial treatment, and a Meta-analysis was carried out to compare results between groups receiving IVB and MPC.
resultsFive randomized controlled trial (RCTs) and one high-quality comparative study were identified and included. Our Meta-analysis revealed that both IVB and MPC resulted in the improvements of CMT and BCVA in eyes with DME at 1mo after initial treatment, with IVB being significantly superior to MPC (P=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). The improvements of both measure outcomes at 3, 6, 12 and 24mo after treatment did not vary significantly between the IVB groups and MPC groups (CMT at 3mo, P=0.85; at 6mo, P=0.29; at 12mo, P=0.56; at 24mo, P=0.71; BCVA at 3mo, P=0.31; at 6mo, P= 0.30; at 12mo, P=0.23; at 24mo, P=0.52). However, the number of observed adverse events was low in all studies.
conclusionCurrent evidence shows IVB treatment trends to be more effective in improvements of macular edema and vision in eyes with DME at an earlier follow up (1mo) compared with MPC. At other time, both interventions have comparable efficacy without statistical significances.
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.