ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about interventions for age-related macular degeneration?
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapies for Managing Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the third largest cause of blindness worldwide, accounting for 8.7% of all cases. A considerable number of preventive or therapeutic interventions have been used for AMD.
objectiveThis study presents a critical view of the interventions that have been assessed through Cochrane systematic reviews. DESIGN AND
settingReview of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP).
methodsReview of Cochrane systematic reviews about interventions for AMD.
resultsThe 18 systematic reviews included assessed the effects of surgical techniques, laser/photo/radiotherapy, intravitreal injections, systemic drugs and phytotherapy/vitamins/supplements.
conclusionThe Cochrane systematic reviews found evidence that use of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, pegaptanib, laser photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy and multivitamin compounds may present some benefits for treating AMD. There was insufficient evidence for supporting the use of macular translocation, submacular surgery, steroid implantation, radiotherapy, intravitreal aflibercept, interferon alfa, statins or omega-3 fatty acids for treating AMD; or the use of multivitamin antioxidant vitamins or mineral supplementation for preventing AMD. Future randomized controlled trials are imperative to reduce the uncertainty in several clinical questions regarding AMD.
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.