ArticleEye (London, England)2018
IRay therapy as an adjuvant therapy in newly diagnosed patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world experience of using stereotactic radiotherapy combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor to treat neovascular AMD.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Microvascular abnormalities and long-term efficacy after stereotactic radiotherapy under continued intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment for neovascular AMD.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- In vitro evaluation of simulated stereotactic radiotherapy for wet age-related macular degeneration on three different cell lines.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy after Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Case Report with Long-Term Follow-Up.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the safety and efficacy at 12 months of follow-up after stereotactic radiotherapy in combination therapy with intravitreal ranibizumab injections in treatment naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
methodsRetrospective data analysis in patients who received stereotactic radiotherapy (IRay Therapy) during the induction phase of intravitreal ranibizumab injections and a monotherapy control group.
resultsThe baseline VA in the IRay and control group was 59.87 and 59.12 letters respectively. The real world visual acuity outcomes for the IRay group showed a mean gain of +3.0 letters at 12 months. The historical control group had a mean change of - 0.3 letters. The average number of injections for the IRay group and control group over 12 months was 4.45 and 5.64, respectively with three loading injections. Excluding the loading phase, the difference over 12 months was a 45.2% reduction in injections (P < 0.001). The number of subjects in the IRay group that didn't require further injections following the loading phase was 45.5 vs. 24.0% control group (P = 0.005). The difference in mean change in central macular thickness from baseline is significant at 6 (P = 0.010) and 12 months (P < 0.01). There were no safety concerns with the IRay therapy group.
conclusionsStereotactic radiotherapy in the induction phase of intravitreal injections of ranibizumab for treatment naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, resulted in improved visual outcome, statistically fewer injections and statistically drier macular at 12 months, compared to historical controls treated with monotherapy intravitreal ranibizumab injections.
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.