SynthesisMedicine2021
Ranibizumab and conbercept for treating wet age-related macular degeneration in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of protein profile in vitreous samples of patients with naive age-related macular degeneration using proteomic approaches.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Identification of Amino Acids That Regulate Angiogenesis and Alter Pathogenesis of a Mouse Model of Choroidal Neovascularization.Nutrients · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects of ranibizumab and conbercept on wet age-related macular degeneration.
methodsRandomized controlled trials comparing ranibizumab and conbercept in the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration were searched in the PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang databases, and Weipu Journal. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality. Data analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.3 software for statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 16 randomized controlled trials, including 1018 patients, were included, and the results showed that the effect of ranibizumab on uncorrected visual acuity was not significantly different from that of conbercept (Mean difference [MD] = -.03, 95% Confidence interval [CI] [-.10-.05], P = .47), and there was no significant difference between the two drugs in the effect on best-corrected visual acuity (MD = .00, 95% CI [-.02-.03], P = .73). The effect of conbercept on intraocular pressure was better than that of ranibizumab (MD = 1.61, 95% CI [1.05-2.17], P < .001). The effect of ranibizumab on central macular thickness was not significantly different from that of conbercept (MD = 1.31, 95% CI [-3.81-6.43], P = .62). Conbercept had a better inhibitory effect on choroidal neovascularization than ranibizumab (MD = .49, 95% CI [.32-.76], P = .001).
conclusionThe effects of ranibizumab on uncorrected visual acuity, best corrected visual acuity, and central macular thickness were not significantly different from those of conbercept. Conbercept is associated with a lower risk of increased intraocular pressure and regression of choroidal neovascularization compared with ranibizumab.
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.