Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29454660›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology2018

Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials.

Ebenezer Daniel, Wei Pan, Gui-Shuang Ying, Benjamin J Kim, Juan E Grunwald, Frederick L Ferris, Glenn J Jaffe, Cynthia A Toth, Daniel F Martin, Stuart L Fine and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Long-term analysis of fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: A 7-year follow-up.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Management of fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ebenezer DanielScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: ebdaniel@mail.med.upenn.edu.
Wei PanScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Gui-Shuang YingScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Benjamin J KimScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Juan E GrunwaldScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Frederick L FerrisNational Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Glenn J JaffeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Cynthia A TothDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Daniel F MartinCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Stuart L FineDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Maureen G MaguireScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials
Penn Presbyterian Medical Center · USDuke University · USCleveland Clinic · USNational Eye Institute · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Scientific TransparencyP30EY001583 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Qi N Cui · 1985 to 2026
$19.5M
Coordinating Center for the Comparison of AMD Treatments TrialsU10EY017823 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MAGUIRE, MAUREEN G · 2006 to 2012
$19.2M
Follow-up Study: Comparison of AMD Treatments Trial (CATT)U10EY023530 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MAGUIRE, MAUREEN G · 2013 to 2016
$3.5M
Photograph Reading Center for the Comparison of AMD Treatment TrialsU10EY017826 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GRUNWALD, JUAN E · 2006 to 2013
$2.8M
Comparison of AMD Treatment Trials-OCT Reading CenterU10EY017825 · NEI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JAFFE, GLENN · 2006 to 2013
$2.3M
Chair Grant for the Comparison of AMD Treatment TrialsU10EY017828 · NEI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI MARTIN, DANIEL F · 2006 to 2012
$1.9M
Secondary Data Analysis of the Data from Comparison of AMD Treatments TrialsR21EY023689 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI YING, GUI-SHUANG · 2013 to 2014
$436k
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001583NEI NIH HHS R21 EY023689NEI NIH HHS U10 EY017825NEI NIH HHS U10 EY017826NEI NIH HHS U10 EY023530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo describe risk factors for scar formation and changes to fibrotic scar through 5 years in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT).

designMulticenter, prospective cohort study.

participantsA total of 1061 subjects in CATT.

methodsColor photographic and fluorescein angiographic images from baseline and 1, 2, and 5 years were evaluated. Incidence of scar formation was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk factors were assessed with Cox regression models.

main outcome measuresScar formation, fibrotic scar area, and macular atrophy associated with fibrotic scar ("atrophy").

resultsCumulative proportion of eyes with scar was 32%, 46%, and 56% at years 1, 2, and 5, respectively. Baseline factors associated with increased risk (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] and 95% confidence interval [CI]) were classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) (aHR, 4.49; 95% CI, 3.34-6.04) versus occult, hemorrhage >1 disc area (DA) (aHR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.49-3.47) versus no hemorrhage, retinal thickness >212 μm (aHR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.69-3.94) versus <120 μm, subretinal tissue complex thickness >275 μm (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.81-3.84) versus ≤75 μm, subretinal fluid thickness >25 μm (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.97-1.75) versus no fluid, visual acuity (VA) in fellow eye 20/20 (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.36) versus 20/50 or worse, retinal pigment epithelium elevation absence (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.21-2.41), and subretinal hyperreflective material (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.36). Among 68 eyes that developed fibrotic scar at year 1, VA decreased by a mean of additional 13 letters between years 1 and 5. Mean scar area was 1.2, 1.2, and 1.9 DA at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Atrophy was present in 18%, 24%, and 54% of these eyes at years 1, 2, and 5, respectively; the mean areas were 1.6, 2.0, and 3.1 DA, respectively. Atrophy replaced fibrotic scar in 8 eyes at year 5. There was no significant correlation between scar growth and atrophy growth. The rate of growth for both was similar between the clinical trial and observation periods.

conclusionsSeveral morphologic features, including classic CNV and large hemorrhage, are associated with scar formation. Rate of new scar formation declined after 2 years. Most fibrotic scars and accompanying macular atrophy expanded over time, reducing VA.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsChoroidal NeovascularizationCicatrixClinical Trials as TopicCohort StudiesFemaleFibrosisFluorescein AngiographyFollow-Up StudiesGeographic AtrophyHumansIncidenceIntravitreal InjectionsKaplan-Meier EstimateAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, human

Identifiers

PMID29454660
PMCPMC6015772
OpenAlexW2788023813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.