Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25976647›Full record

Trial reportEye (London, England)2015

Sustained supplementation and monitored response with differing carotenoid formulations in early age-related macular degeneration.

K O Akuffo, J M Nolan, A N Howard, R Moran, J Stack, R Klein, B E Klein, S M Meuer, S Sabour-Pickett, D I Thurnham and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Eye (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Identification of a key geneFood chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

K O AkuffoMacular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
J M NolanMacular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
A N HowardHoward Foundation, Cambridge, UK.
R MoranMacular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.ORCID 0000000305015431
J StackMacular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
R KleinDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
B E KleinDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
S M MeuerDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
S Sabour-PickettMacular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
D I ThurnhamNorthern Ireland, Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), University of Ulster, Coleraine, UK.ORCID 0000000192891370
S BeattyMacular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
Waterford Institute of Technology · IEUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USThe Howard Foundation · GBUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

European Research Council 281096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the impact of sustained supplementation using different macular carotenoid formulations on macular pigment (MP) and visual function in early age-related macular degeneration (AMD). PATIENTS AND

methodsSixty-seven subjects with early AMD were randomly assigned to: Group 1 (20 mg per day lutein (L), 0.86 mg per day zeaxanthin (Z); Ultra Lutein), Group 2 (10 mg per day meso-zeaxanthin (MZ), 10 mg per day L, 2 mg per day Z; Macushield; Macuhealth), Group 3 (17 mg per day MZ, 3 mg per day L, 2 mg per day Z). MP was measured using customised heterochromatic flicker photometry and visual function was assessed by measuring contrast sensitivity (CS) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). AMD was graded using the Wisconsin Age-Related Maculopathy Grading System (AREDS 11-step severity scale).

resultsAt 3 years, a significant increase in MP from baseline was observed in all groups at each eccentricity (P<0.05), except at 1.75° in Group 1 (P=0.160). Between 24 and 36 months, significant increases in MP at each eccentricity were seen in Group 3 (P<0.05 for all), and at 0.50° in Group 2 (P<0.05), whereas no significant increases were seen in Group 1 (P>0.05 for all). At 36 months, compared with baseline, the following significant improvements (P<0.05) in CS were observed: Group 2-1.2, 6, and 9.6 cycles per degree (c.p.d.); Group 1-15.15 c.p.d.; and Group 3-6, 9.6, and 15.15 c.p.d. No significant changes in BCVA, or progression to advanced AMD, were observed.

conclusionIn early AMD, MP can be augmented with a variety of supplements, although the inclusion of MZ may confer benefits in terms of panprofile augmentation and in terms of CS enhancement.

Indexed as

Administration, OralCarotenoidsChromatography, High Pressure LiquidContrast SensitivityDietary SupplementsDrug CompoundingHumansLuteinMacular DegenerationMacular PigmentPhotometrySingle-Blind MethodVisual AcuityZeaxanthinsCarotenoidsLuteinMacular Pigmentmeso-zeaxanthinZeaxanthins

Identifiers

PMID25976647
PMCPMC4506345
OpenAlexW836405414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.