ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021
Ten-year changes in visual acuity at baseline and at 2 years after treatment in a Japanese population with age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term surveillance provides real-world evidences of safety and effectiveness in intravitreal aflibercept treatment for age-related macular degeneration.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- Subtype prevalence and baseline visual acuity by age in Japanese patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- The Antimicrobial Photoinactivation Effect onMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Clinical characteristics and pachychoroid incidence in Japanese patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Scientific reports · 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
16 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe investigated 10-year changes in baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), as well as functional and anatomical changes at 1 and 2 years after initial treatment, in eyes with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
methodsThis retrospective, multicenter, case series reviewed patients with treatment-naïve nAMD who underwent initial treatment from 2006 to 2015, using photodynamic therapy (PDT), anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), or a combination of PDT and anti-VEGF. BCVA and central retinal subfield thickness (CRST), were measured at baseline and at 1 or 2 years of follow-up.
resultsIn total, 3096 eyes of 3096 patients were included from 14 hospitals. Mean BCVA at baseline became significantly better over the 10-year study period (P < 0.001). BCVA at 1 year significantly improved from baseline in patients who underwent initial treatment from 2009 to 2015 (P = 0.001, 2009; P = 0.004, 2010; P = 0.01, 2011; P < 0.001, 2012-2015). BCVA at 2 years significantly improved from baseline in patients who underwent initial treatment from 2012 to 2015 (P < 0.001, 2012; P < 0.001, 2013-2015). CRST at 1 year decreased significantly from CRST at baseline, each year from 2006 to 2015 (P < 0.001, 2006-2015). CRST at 2 years decreased significantly from CRST at baseline, each year from 2006 to 2015 (P = 0.03, 2006; P < 0.001, 2007-2015).
conclusionBaseline BCVA with treatment-naïve nAMD tended to become better during the study period. BCVA at 1 year improved in the era of anti-VEGF; BCVA at 2 years improved in patients who underwent initial treatment in 2012 or later; and CRST decreased in each year during the study period.
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.