ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2015
Pharmacogenetics and nutritional supplementation in age-related macular degeneration.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. 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.
- Risk factors for progression of age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2020Review
- Genetics and age-related macular degeneration: a practical review for the clinician.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) recommended treatment with antioxidants plus zinc in patients with intermediate or advanced age-related macular degeneration in order to reduce progression risks. Recent pharmacogenetic studies have reported differences in treatment outcomes with respect to variants in genes for CFH and ARMS2, although the treatment recommendations based on these differences are controversial. Different retrospective analyses of subsets of patients from the same AREDS trial have drawn different conclusions. The practicing clinician, who is not an expert on genetics, clinical trial design, or statistical analysis, may be uncertain how to interpret these results. Based on the balance of the available literature, we suggest not changing established practice recommendations until additional evidence from clinical trials becomes available.
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.