ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
A Delphi study on the clinical management of age-related macular degeneration.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus on age-related macular degeneration course curricula for general ophthalmologists and non-ophthalmologist clinical staff: A Delphi study.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Geographic Atrophy Management Consensus (GA-MAC): a Delphi panel study on identification, diagnosis and treatment.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Developing the marine medicine syllabus for medical sciences students: a multiphase design study.BMC medical education · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the main causes of blindness and visual impairment worldwide. As achieving a dry macula is one of the main objectives in AMD management, the purpose of this work was to reach a consensus on the relevance of retinal fluid in function, disease activity control and treatment patterns.
methodsForty-seven Portuguese ophthalmologists specialized in AMD participated in a DELPHI panel. Two rounds of presential meetings were conducted and a cut-off of 80% or more of votes was defined to consider answers consensual.
resultsConsensus was reached for 11 out of 18 questions. These questions focused on the impact of anatomical results on visual acuity, standards exams and parameters to assess disease activity, frequency and factors which influence disease activity assessment, criteria to use non-fixed treatment regimens, usefulness of individualized regimens and conditions for treatment interruption. No consensus was obtained for relevance of the different fluid types in AMD prognosis, frequency of fluid presence assessment, factors commonly associated with progression to geographic atrophy, ideal conditions for a fixed treatment regimen, date of first disease activity assessment and parameters to monitor disease activity.
conclusionsConsensus was achieved for over half of the questions assessed through this Delphi study. The questions for which no consensus was reached concerned either subjects that need further investigation or monitoring times which are influenced by resource availability. Raising awareness for these issues will allow the improvement of AMD management and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35149923What 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.