Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32971626›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020

Factors affecting compliance to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in Indian patients with retinal vein occlusion, age-related macular degeneration, and diabetic macular edema.

Aditya Kelkar, Caroll Webers, Rohit Shetty, Jai Kelkar, Nikhil Labhsetwar, Abhishek Pandit, Madhulika Malode, Sayali Tidke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Nonadherence to anti-VEGF intravitreal injections in patients with diabetic macular edema : The names of the authors.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Aditya KelkarNational Institute of Ophthalmology, Pune, India.
Caroll WebersDepartment of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rohit ShettyNarayana Nethralaya, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Jai KelkarNational Institute of Ophthalmology, Pune, India.
Nikhil LabhsetwarNational Institute of Ophthalmology, Pune, India.
Abhishek PanditNational Institute of Ophthalmology, Pune, India.
Madhulika MalodeSqarona Medical Communications LLP, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sayali TidkeNational Institute of Ophthalmology, Pune, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the rate of compliance and the reasons for loss to follow-up in Indian patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) being treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy.

methodsThis was a retrospective single-center study. Patients with DME, AMD, or RVO were eligible if they initiated anti-VEGF therapy between January 2013 and December 2017. Patients' data were obtained from hospital electronic records, including the number of injections received, visits, details of follow-up, missed appointments, and reasons for loss to follow-up (>365 days).

resultsA total of 648 patients were eligible for the study, of which 334 (51.54%) patients were lost to follow-up. Overall, 343 (64.96%) were males and the overall mean (SD) age was 66.40 (7.44) years. A total of 376 (58.0%) patients had a history of diabetes and 364 (56.2%) patients had a history of hypertension. Further, 127 (38.0), 112 (33.5), and 95 (28.4) had DME, AMD, and RVO, respectively and were lost to follow-up. The most commonly reported reason for loss to follow-up was "non-affordability" (n = 120; 41.1%) followed by "no improvement in vision" (n = 83; 28.4%). "No improvement in vision" (42.2%) and "non-affordability" (37.5%) were higher among patients with DME. No association was found in gender- and treatment-wise distribution of reasons for loss to follow-up.

conclusionThe results showed that around half of the patients with DME, AMD, and RVO were lost to follow-up to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, and the most common factors were "non-affordability" and "no improvement in vision."

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyMacular DegenerationMacular EdemaRetinal Vein OcclusionAgedAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabFemaleHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMaleRanibizumabRetrospective StudiesVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabRanibizumabVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AFollow-upintravitreal injectionpatient compliance

Identifiers

PMID32971626
PMCPMC7728040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.