Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26558226›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2015

Ranibizumab alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy vs photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.

Kai Tang, Jun-Kang Si, Da-Dong Guo, Yan Cui, Yu-Xiang Du, Xue-Mei Pan, Hong-Sheng Bi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy treatment options: A meta-analysis.European journal of clinical investigation · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Kai TangAffiliated Eye Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China ; Department of Ophthalmology, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.
Jun-Kang SiAffiliated Eye Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China ; Department of Ophthalmology, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.
Da-Dong GuoEye Institute of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.
Yan CuiEye Institute of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.
Yu-Xiang DuAffiliated Eye Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China ; Department of Ophthalmology, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.
Xue-Mei PanAffiliated Eye Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.
Hong-Sheng BiAffiliated Eye Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China ; Eye Institute of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan 250002, Shandong Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs PDT in patients with symptomatic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV).

methodsA systematic search of a wide range of databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) was searched to identify relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT studies were included. Methodological quality of included literatures was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RevMan 5.2.7 software was used to do the Meta-analysis.

resultsThree RCTs and 6 retrospective studies were included. The results showed that PDT monotherapy had a significantly higher proportion in patients who achieved complete regression of polyps than IVR monotherapy at months 3, 6, and 12 (All P≤0.01), respectively. However, IVR had a tendency to be more effective in improving vision on the basis of RCTs. The proportion of patients who gained complete regression of polyps revealed that there was no significant difference between the combination treatment and PDT monotherapy. The mean change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline showed that the combination treatment had significant superiority in improving vision vs PDT monotherapy at months 3, 6 and 24 (All P<0.05), respectively. In the mean time, this comparison result was also significant at month 12 (P<0.01) after removal of a heterogeneous study.

conclusionIVR has non-inferiority compare with PDT either in stabilizing or in improving vision, although it can hardly promote the regression of polyps. The combination treatment of PDT and IVR can exert a synergistic effect on regressing polyps and on maintaining or improving visual acuity. Thus, it can be the first-line therapy for PCV.

Indexed as

combination treatmentMeta-analysismonotherapyphotodynamic therapypolypoidal choroidal vasculopathyranibizumabsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26558226
PMCPMC4630984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.