Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2018
Comparison of immediate versus deferred intravitreal Bevacizumab in macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: a pilot study.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Short and long-term impact of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy interruption in retinal vein occlusion during the COVID-19 pandemic: functional outcomes and AI-based fluid analysis of macular edema.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual and anatomical recovery of immediate versus deferred intravitreal Bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
methodsIn a pilot study, 40 treatment naïve patients of branch retinal vein occlusion with macular oedema and vision 6/12 or less presenting within one month of onset were randomised into 2 groups (20 each) to receive either immediate intravitreal Bevacizumab or deferred (after 3 months of observation). Outcome in terms of visual recovery and decrease in central macular thickness on the Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) from pre-treatment level was analysed at 6 and 12 months from starting of treatment and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe mean visual gain in the two groups early and delayed intervention was 0.38 log MARs and 0.15 log MAR units, respectively, and the superior vision gain in the early intervention group was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The difference in visual improvement between the two groups persisted till 1 year of follow-up. The early intervention group required fewer injections (2.6 ± 71 vs. 3.5 ± 0.51), and rescue laser treatment (15 vs. 25%) as compared to deferred group. Both groups showed significant decrease in central macular thickness (328 and 289 µ, respectively) from baseline thickness, but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.45).
conclusionsBoth early as well as deferred injection of Bevacizumab in macular oedema due to BRVO resulted in reduction of macular oedema and visual gain but immediate injection were associated with significantly greater visual gain with lesser number of injections fewer rescue laser treatment.
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.