Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33114566›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2020

Visual Function and Macular Carotenoid Changes in Eyes with Retinal Drusen-An Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare a Micronized Lipid-Based Carotenoid Liquid Supplementation and AREDS-2 Formula.

Pinakin Gunvant Davey, Thomas Henderson, Drake W Lem, Rebecca Weis, Stephanie Amonoo-Monney, David W Evans

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03946085 (Clinical Evaluation of a Micronized, Lipid-based Carotenoid Supplement in Eyes With Retinal Drusen), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT03946085 nacompletednot on this map

Clinical Evaluation of a Micronized, Lipid-based Carotenoid Supplement in Eyes With Retinal Drusen

TypeinterventionalSponsorGuardion Health Sciences, Inc.Ran2018 to 2018Enrolled79ConditionsRetinal Drusen, Age-related Macular Degeneration, Macular DegenerationArmsLumega-Z, AREDS2
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pinakin Gunvant DaveyCollege of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA 91766, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6683-7052
Thomas HendersonEye Clinic of Austin, Austin, TX 78731, USA.
Drake W LemCollege of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA 91766, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1060-9162
Rebecca WeisEye Clinic of Austin, Austin, TX 78731, USA.
Stephanie Amonoo-MonneyCollege of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA 91766, USA.
David W EvansVectorVision/Guardion Health Sciences, San Diego, CA 92128, USA.
Western University of Health Sciences · USVector (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the changes in visual and ocular parameters in individuals with retinal drusen who were treated with two commercially available nutritional supplements.

methodsAn open-label, single-center, randomized, parallel-treatment with an observational control group design was utilized. The treatment groups included individuals with fine retinal drusen sub-clinical age-related macular degeneration (AMD), while the control group consisted of ocular normal individuals. The treatment groups were randomly assigned to the micronized lipid-based carotenoid supplement, Lumega-Z (LM), or the PreserVision Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS-2) soft gel (PV). Visual performance was evaluated using the techniques of visual acuity, dark adaptation recovery and contrast sensitivity, at baseline, three months, and six months. Additionally, the macular pigment optical density (MPOD) was measured. The control group was not assigned any carotenoid supplement. The right eye and left eye results were analyzed separately.

resultsSeventy-nine participants were recruited for this study, of which 68 qualified and 56 participants had useable reliable data. Of the individuals who completed this study, 25 participants belonged to the LM group, 16 belonged to the PV group, and 15 to the control group. The LM group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in both eyes at six months (

conclusionThe LM group demonstrated greater and faster benefits in visual performance as measured by CSF when compared to the PV group. This trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03946085).

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAgedCarotenoidsFemaleHumansLipidsLuteinMacular DegenerationMacular PigmentMaleMiddle AgedRetinal DrusenTreatment OutcomeVisual AcuityZeaxanthinsCarotenoidsLipidsLuteinMacular PigmentZeaxanthinsage-related macular degenerationAREDS-2carotenoidscontrast sensitivityLumega-Zluteinmacular degenerationmacular pigmentmedical foodmeso-zeaxanthinMPODPreserVisionzeaxanthin

Identifiers

PMID33114566
PMCPMC7693149
OpenAlexW3096020142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.