ArticleInternational ophthalmology2015
The safety of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in clinical studies.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2015. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Safety of Intravitreal Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab Treatments for Retinal Diseases in Thailand: A Prospective Observational Study.Clinical drug investigation · 2018Observational
- Licence to save: a UK survey of anti-VEGF use for the eye in 2015.Eye (London, England) · 2016Article
- Assessment of bevacizumab quality and stability in repackaged syringes for clinical use.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2016Article
- Matrix metalloproteinase-9 and vascular endothelial growth factor expression change in experimental retinal neovascularization.International journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In comparing the safety of ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration, the meta-analyses published thus far have given conflicting results, particularly about the risk of venous thrombotic events and ocular inflammation. From the comparison of the design and the findings of these meta-analysis, we tried to identify the potential explanations to account for these discrepancies. We separately evaluated the incidence of ocular inflammation with the two agents between randomized studies and non-randomized studies. While no increase in risk was found in randomized studies, non-randomized studies showed an increase in risk for bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. One interpretation of these findings is that bevacizumab itself does not represent any increase in risk of ocular inflammation and/or cardiovascular events under the rigorous conditions of a randomized study, but this agent can be at the origin of an increase in risk when administered in the "real world"; this setting could in fact leave space for less strictly controlled preparation of aliquots for intravitreal injection.
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.