ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2016
Bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in Chinese patients in a clinical setting.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Burden of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in China (1990-2023): Insights from an Aging Society and the Anti-VEGF Era.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the outcome of non-investigational treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients.
methodsRetrospective chart review of 81 eyes with neovascular AMD followed-up for at least 12mo and received 3-monthly loading IVB injections. Re-treat was based upon the individual clinician's judgment. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography measurements of central foveal thickness outcomes were evaluated at 12, 24mo.
resultsEighty-one eyes (of 75 patients) completed 12mo of follow-up and 44 eyes (of 41 patients) completed 24mo of follow-up. The mean baseline logMAR BCVA significantly improved from 0.94±0.69 to 0.85±0.68 at 12mo (P<0.001) and from 0.91±0.65 to 0.85±0.60 (P=0.004) at 24mo. The proportion of eyes that lost <15 logMAR letters at 12mo was 90.1% and at 24mo was 81.8%. IVB was effective in improving visual acuity in both treatment naïve and previous photodynamic therapy (PDT)-treated subgroups. Treatment naive patients required significantly fewer injections than patients with prior PDT. Multiple regression analysis identified that poorer baseline visual acuity was associated with greater improvement in visual acuity (P=0.015).
conclusionFewer injections in clinical practice may result in suboptimal visual outcomes compared with clinical trials of IVB in neovascular AMD patients. Poor baseline visual acuity and prior PDT treatment may also improve vision after IVB. The safety and durability of effect was maintained at 24mo.
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.