ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2017
Age-related macular degeneration in patients with uveitis.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Infectious uveitis: a comprehensive systematic review of emerging trends and molecular pathogenesis using network analysis".Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2024Review
- Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease in pediatric, adult and elderly: clinical characteristics and visual outcomes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- The effect of long-term systemic immunosuppressive drug use on druse formation: a new perspective to age-related macular degenerationTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2020Article
- Chronic, Systemic Interleukin-18 Does Not Promote Macular Degeneration or Choroidal Neovascularization.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the prevalence of large drusen in a uveitis clinic population.
designRetrospective, cohort study.
methodsPatients with primary, non-infectious uveitis 55 years or older who were seen at the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health from 2004 through August 2013 were reviewed using electronic medical records and photographic databases. Patients were classified as having age-related macular degeneration (AMD) if either eye had large drusen, geographic atrophy or neovascular AMD according to definitions used by the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group (EDPRG). The expected number of cases and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) for large drusen were estimated based on EDPRG estimates.
resultsWe identified 177 patients aged ≥55 years as having primary non-infectious uveitis; 170 (96.0%) had gradable fundus photos. Average age was 65.0±7.5 years (range 55-87), and 87 were non-Hispanic white, 66 non-Hispanic black, 6 Hispanic white and 11 of other race/ethnicity. Large drusen were identified in four patients (2.4%; 95% CI 0.6 to 6.0). No patients were identified to have late AMD. In the uveitis cohort, the SMR for cases of large drusen, which was adjusted for age, was calculated to be 0.32 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for the whole cohort, 0.28 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.79) for non-Hispanic whites and 0.46 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.29) for non-Hispanic blacks.
conclusionsLarge drusen prevalence among patients with uveitis ≥55 years of age appears less than the prevalence in the general US population after accounting for differences in age distribution, especially for non-Hispanic whites. Although the racial and gender distribution in this study population is not directly representative of the general US population, results of this study suggest possible sparing of patients with uveitis from AMD. A larger systematic study with greater power would be needed to confirm these findings.
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.