ArticleInternational ophthalmology2016
Clinical, anatomical, and electrophysiological assessments of the central retina following intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting OCT images of short-term response to anti-VEGF treatment for retinal vein occlusion using generative adversarial network.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Efficacy of single bevacizumab injection as adjuvant therapy to laser photocoagulation in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Article
- Effects of intravitreal Bevacizumab (Avastin) monotherapy in central retinal vein occlusion in young subjects.Romanian journal of 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
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term visual, anatomical and electrophysiological outcomes of repeated intravitreal injections of bevacizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and investigate any possible toxic effects on the central fovea. This is a prospective, noncomparative, interventional case series. Thirty-three eyes of 33 patients with macular edema secondary to RVO were treated with 1.25 mg/0.05 ml intravitreal bevacizumab. Nine patients had nonischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and 24 patients had branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity, central retinal thickness (CRT), and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) responses changes at baseline, 1 month after the third injection and at the end of the 2-year long follow-up period. Patients with CRVO had mean best-corrected Snellen visual acuity of 0.10 at baseline, which improved significantly to 0.31 after 2 years (P = 0. 028).The mean CRT at presentation was 756.28 μm and reduced significantly to 439.14 μm after 2 years (P = 0.05). Patients with BRVO had mean best-corrected Snellen visual acuity of 0.19 at baseline, which improved significantly to 0.40 after 2 years (P < 0.001). The mean CRT at presentation was 681.04 μm and reduced significantly to 369.81 μm after 2 years (P < 0.001). Mean mfERG responses within central 10° (ring1, ring2) showed statistically significant differences on P1 parameters in terms of response density and implicit time after 2 years in both CRVO and BRVO patients. Repeated intravitreal bevacizumab injections for macular edema due to either CRVO or BRVO resulted in long-term improvement of visual acuity, a reduction in CRT and statistically significant changes in the mfERG responses with nondemonstrable toxic effects on the central fovea.
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.