Trial reportAmerican journal of ophthalmology2021
SCORE2 Report 13: Intraretinal Hemorrhage Changes in Eyes With Central or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion Managed With Aflibercept, Bevacizumab or Observation. Secondary Analysis of the SCORE and SCORE2 Clinical Trials.
Trial report in American journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01969708 (Study of COmparative Treatments for REtinal Vein Occlusion 2 [SCORE2]), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Study of COmparative Treatments for REtinal Vein Occlusion 2 [SCORE2]: a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial of Eyes With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, Comparing Intravitreal Bevacizumab Every 4 Weeks With Intravitreal Aflibercept Every 4 Weeks.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Central Bouquet Hemorrhages in Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Distinct Pathway to Macular Atrophy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Macular dynamics and visual acuity prognosis in retinal vein occlusions - ways to connect.Romanian journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the relationship between intraretinal macular hemorrhage and visual acuity outcomes in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion or hemiretinal vein occlusion managed with aflibercept, bevacizumab, or observation.
designRetrospective analysis of data from 2 randomized clinical trials.
methodsA total of 362 participants were randomized in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2, and 88 participants randomized to observation in the Standard Care vs Corticosteroid in Retinal Vein Occlusion Study. Participants received monthly intravitreal aflibercept or bevacizumab through month 6 or observation through month 8. The main outcome was visual acuity letter score (VALS).
resultsReduced area of hemorrhage by month 6 was observed in 70.7% (116 of 164) of aflibercept-treated eyes, 63.8% (104 of 163) of bevacizumab-treated eyes, and 42.2% (27 of 64) of observation eyes by month 8 (P < .01). Relative to eyes with hemorrhage during follow-up, aflibercept-treated eyes without hemorrhage at month 6 had a mean VALS improvement of 8.0 (99% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 14.2); bevacizumab-treated eyes without hemorrhage at month 6 had a mean VALS improvement of 3.2 (99% CI: -4.6, 11.0); and observation eyes without hemorrhage at month 8 had a mean VALS improvement of 13.5 (99% CI: 0.4, 26.5). At month 6, the presence of hemorrhage and the change in central subfield thickness (CST) were significantly associated with the change in VALS; however, CST was a more important predictor.
conclusionImprovement in hemorrhage during follow-up was associated with visual acuity improvements and predicted visual acuity changes beyond what was explained by CST. These findings suggest that intraretinal macular hemorrhage is an important indicator of disease severity in retinal vein occlusion.
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.