Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31014683›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology. Retina2019

Distribution of OCT Features within Areas of Macular Atrophy or Scar after 2 Years of Anti-VEGF Treatment for Neovascular AMD in CATT.

Cynthia A Toth, Vincent Tai, Maxwell Pistilli, Stephanie J Chiu, Katrina P Winter, Ebenezer Daniel, Juan E Grunwald, Glenn J Jaffe, Daniel F Martin, Gui-Shuang Ying and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology. Retina, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Imaging biomarkers and artificial intelligence for diagnosis, prediction, and therapy of macular fibrosis in age-related macular degeneration: Narrative review and future directions.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cynthia A TothDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: cynthia.toth@duke.edu.
Vincent TaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Maxwell PistilliDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Stephanie J ChiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Katrina P WinterDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Ebenezer DanielDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Juan E GrunwaldDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Glenn J JaffeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Daniel F MartinCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Gui-Shuang YingDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Sina FarsiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Maureen G MaguireDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials Research Group
Duke University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USCleveland Clinic · 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
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001583NEI NIH HHS U10 EY017823NEI NIH HHS U10 EY017825NEI NIH HHS U10 EY017826NEI NIH HHS U10 EY017828NEI NIH HHS U10 EY023530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMacular atrophy and scar increase in prevalence during treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration and are associated with poor visual acuity. We sought to identify the distribution of spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT)-determined features and subretinal lesion thicknesses at sites of macular scar or atrophy after 2 years of treatment in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT).

designCross-sectional analysis.

participantsCATT participants with SD-OCT, color photographic (CP) and fluorescein angiogram (FA; CP/FA) images at year 2.

methodsSixty-eight study eyes at year 2 in CATT were selected based on image quality and CP/FA-determined predominant presence of the following: geographic atrophy (GA, n = 25), non-GA (NGA, n = 44), fibrotic scar (FS, n = 26), or non-FS (NFS, n = 7). The CP/FA components were delineated by CP/FA readers; SD-OCT morphologic features and thicknesses were delineated by OCT readers. Using custom software and graphic user interfaces, images were registered, overlaying features and components per pixel; differences were analyzed across groups.

main outcome measuresOCT features, CP/FA components, and retinal and subretinal lesion thicknesses at each pixel of regional overlays.

resultsSD-OCT assessment of registered areas of pathology revealed the following: (1) retinal pigment epithelium atrophy (with or without residual lesion material) covered 75% of pixels designated as GA, 22% of NGA, 24% of NFS, and 46% of FS (P < 0.001). (2) Photoreceptor layer thinning covered 85% of GA, 42% of NGA, 33% of NFS, and 59% of FS (P < 0.001). (3) Subretinal lesion features covered 31% of GA, 42% of NGA, 85% of NFS, and 92% of FS (P < 0.001). Mean thickness of the subretinal lesion complex (measured in microns ± standard deviation) differed among GA (48±25 μm), NGA (61±35 μm), NFS (83±17 μm), and FS (151±74 μm) (P < 0.001). In eyes with GA, the thickness was greater in areas with residual lesion (51.4±27 μm) than in those without (27.2±9 μm).

conclusionsRetinal pigment epithelium atrophy and photoreceptor layer thinning are common not only in areas of macular atrophy but also in areas of FS. Photoreceptor loss extends beyond the areas of clinically apparent atrophy and FS. Subretinal lesion components were common in areas of scar, but they were also present in nearly one-third or more of areas of macular atrophy.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsAtrophyCicatrixCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ProgressionFluorescein AngiographyFollow-Up StudiesFundus OculiHumansIntravitreal InjectionsPrognosisRetinal Pigment EpitheliumRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID31014683
PMCPMC6482846
OpenAlexW2903027641

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.