ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Novel metrics for evaluating decision making in a 'Treat and Extend' regimen for neovascular age related macular degeneration.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary aim was to investigate outcome of the decision making on duration of injection intervals between injection visits over the first 2 years of a treat and extend regimen.
methodConsecutive patients receiving Aflibercept for treatment naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration between 01.01.2016 and 15.07.2017 were identified from our departmental register. Retrospective data collected on all visits over 24 months were classified into three groups: (A) Without Interval Decision Events (IDE)" Injection only" (B) IDE resulting in injection intervals of <5 weeks and (C) IDE resulting in intervals of >5 weeks. The primary outcome was number of successful IDE relative to the total visits in Group C. Successful decision making was defined as absence of worsening of visual acuity (>5 L) or central retinal thickness (>50 microns) at the subsequent visit. Secondary visual and anatomical outcomes at 24 months were also evaluated.
resultsData from 56 eyes of 50 patients were included in the study. Visual acuity improved by +7.11 L at 24 months. Forty one patients with unilateral therapy made 721 visits: 280 visits (38.8%) were group A; 164 visits (22.8%) were group B and 277 visits (38.4%) were group C. Average interval in Group C was 8.9 weeks (range 5-15). The success rate of extension was 95.31% (264/277 visits).
conclusionThese metrics for evaluating the decision making aspect of disease activity monitoring may be useful for monitoring performance and have given us a more realistic view and expectations of what can be achieved using this regime to optimise the timing of injections.
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.