Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33977317›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021

Delayed follow-up of medical retina patients due to COVID-19: impact on disease activity and visual acuity.

Lydia G Stone, Michael E Grinton, James S Talks

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Covid-19 and its relation to the human eye: transmission, infection, and ocular manifestations.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lydia G StoneNewcastle Eye Centre, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK. Lydia.stone1@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3034-7809
Michael E GrintonNewcastle Eye Centre, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6284-774X
James S TalksNewcastle Eye Centre, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK. James.talks@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-6476
Royal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe coronavirus pandemic has prompted unprecedented delays to treatment with anti-VEGF intravitreal injections due to the need to reduce hospital attendances and prioritise the patients at highest risk of vision loss. This study aims to quantify the effect of these delays on visual acuity (VA) outcomes and optical coherence tomography (OCT) features for patients receiving treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), retinal vein occlusions (RVO) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and correlate to the Royal College of Ophthalmologists guidelines (RCOphth).

methodsA retrospective data analysis of an electronic medical record was performed on a random sample of eyes receiving anti-VEGF injections for nAMD, RVO or DMO. Data collected included age, sex, reason for injection, number of weeks delay if > 8 weeks from that planned, VA at baseline and follow-up and the OCT features, if delayed. For those eyes not delayed, a visual acuity at 20 weeks was recorded to provide a control group.

resultsA sample of 981 eyes (858 patients) were analysed. There was a delay in review of 8 weeks or more in 39.6% of patients of which 30.4% had since returned for review (28.4% nAMD, 37.6% RVO and 30.0% DMO). There was no demographic difference identified between the delayed and non-delayed patients; however, the delayed group was significantly more likely to have better vision in their non-treated eye (p = 0.0003). A statistically significant difference was found in the change in VA between the delayed and the not-delayed group for eyes with nAMD (p = 0.001) but not for RVO or DMO. For the delayed group, mean CMT increased by 33 and 100 μm, respectively, for nAMD and RVO and decreased by 7.8 μm for DMO. The VA of 89.7% of DMO eyes returned to baseline, compared to 74.6% and 76.9% of nAMD and RVO eyes.

conclusionThe RCOphth guidance to prioritise intravitreal injections for nAMD over DMO appears appropriate in this cohort but not for RVO. Eyes with nAMD experienced the greatest loss of vision with treatment delay, and nAMD and RVO eyes were less likely to return to baseline on restarting treatment.

Indexed as

COVID-19Angiogenesis InhibitorsFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntravitreal InjectionsRanibizumabRetinaRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Tomography, Optical CoherenceVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsRanibizumabVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAnti-VEGFCOVID-19MacularVisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID33977317
PMCPMC8112469
OpenAlexW3161685504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.