Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2020
Assessment of the DRCR Retina Network Approach to Management With Initial Observation for Eyes With Center-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Visual Acuity: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01909791 (Treatment for Central-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema in Eyes With Very Good Visual Acuity), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 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.
Treatment for Central-Involved Diabetic Macular Edema in Eyes With Very Good Visual Acuity
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Initial Aflibercept, Laser, or Observation on Low-Contrast Visual Acuity in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema and Good Vision: Ancillary Study Within a Randomized Clinical Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Trial
- Assessment of real-life visual outcomes and treatment efficacy of diabetic macular edema in patients with type 2 diabetes.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Clinical and optical coherence tomography predictors of spontaneous resolution of diabetic macular edema: incremental value of the subfoveal large choroidal vessel layer thickness ratio.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- NICE guidelines reaffirm the key role of laser for treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Real-world outcomes of early and deferred anti-VEGF treatment in diabetic macular oedema in patients with type 1 diabetes.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Ten-Year Follow-Up of Visual Outcomes After Vitrectomy for Clinically Non-Tractional Diabetic Macular Edema.Cureus · 2025Article
- Modulation of Oxidative Stress in Diabetic Retinopathy: Therapeutic Role of Natural Polyphenols.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intravitreal therapy for the management of diabetic retinopathy: A concise review.World journal of experimental medicine · 2024Review
- Subfoveal neurosensory detachment flattening and observe (SNF-Ob) approach for the management of Ci-DMO - a multicentric study.Eye (London, England) · 2024Observational
- Intensive Glycemic Management Is Associated With Reduced Retinal Structure Abnormalities on Ocular Coherence Tomography in the DCCT/EDIC Study.Diabetes care · 2024Article
- Diabetic Disease of the Eye in Canada: Consensus Statements from a Retina Specialist Working Group.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Intravitreal DEX Implant for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review of National Consensus.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Comparison of Snellen Visual Acuity Measurements in Retinal Clinical Practice to Electronic ETDRS Protocol Visual Acuity Assessment.Ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Effect of Adjunctive Intravitreal Conbercept Injection at the End of 25G Vitrectomy on Severe Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: 6-Month Outcomes of a Randomised Controlled Trial.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in diabetic macular edema: real-life outcomes from a multicenter study in Turkey over 36 months.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Management of Diabetic Macular Edema: Guidelines from the Emirates Society of Ophthalmology.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Frequency and timing of antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment for eyes with centre-involved diabetic macular oedema and good vision: Protocol V results in context.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Visual outcomes of observation, macular laser and anti-VEGF in diabetic macular edema in type 1 diabetes: a real-world study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Initial observation or treatment for diabetic macular oedema with good visual acuity: two-year outcomes comparison in routine clinical practice: data from the Fight Retinal Blindness! Registry.Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Article
- Relationship Between Risk Factors and Macular Thickness in Patients with Early Diabetic Retinopathy.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Among eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good visual acuity (VA), randomized clinical trial results showed no difference in VA loss between initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, initial focal/grid laser plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, or prompt aflibercept. Understanding the initial observation approach is relevant to patient management. Objective: To assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outcomes of initial observation with aflibercept only if VA worsened. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial of the DRCR Retina Network Protocol V that included 91 US and Canadian sites from November 2013 to September 2018. Participants were adults (n = 236) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, 1 study eye with CI-DME, and VA letter score at least 79 (Snellen equivalent, 20/25 or better) assigned to initial observation. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to November 2019. Interventions: Initial observation and follow-up with aflibercept only for VA loss of at least 10 letters from baseline at 1 visit or 5 to 9 letters at 2 consecutive visits. Follow-up occurred at 8 weeks and then every 16 weeks unless VA or optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness worsened. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether individuals received aflibercept. Results: Among 236 eyes in 236 individuals (149 [63%] male; median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 53-67 years]) randomly assigned to initial observation, 80 (34%) were treated with aflibercept during 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, the median VA letter score was 86.0 (interquartile range, 89.0-81.0; median Snellen equivalent, 20/20 [20/16-20/25]). Receipt of aflibercept was more likely in eyes with baseline central subfield thickness at least 300 μm (Zeiss-Stratus equivalent) vs less than 300 μm (45% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.98 [95% CI, 1.26-3.13], continuous P = .005), moderately severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study retinopathy severity level 47) and above vs moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (retinopathy severity level 43) and below (51% vs 27%; HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.42-3.47], ordinal P < .001), and among participants whose nonstudy eye received DME treatment within 4 months of randomization vs not (52% vs 25%; HR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.64-3.99], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Most eyes managed with initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA worsened maintained good vision at 2 years and did not require aflibercept for VA loss. However, the eyes in the trial were approximately twice as likely to receive aflibercept for VA loss if they had greater baseline central subfield thickness, worse diabetic retinopathy severity level, or a nonstudy eye receiving treatment for DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.
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.