ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
The efficacy of different anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and prognostic biomarkers in monitoring of the treatment for myopic choroidal neovascularization.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- ApoM-bound S1P acts via endothelial S1PR1 to suppress choroidal neovascularization and vascular leakage.Angiogenesis · 2025Article
- Real-World Treatment Intensity and Patterns in Patients With Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization: Common Data Model in Ophthalmology.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Observational
- High‑dose aflibercept injection has striking effects on myopic choroidal neovascularization.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Prospective Study Comparing Quantitative Self-Monitoring Metamorphopsia Measurement Tools in Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization (mCNV).Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate anatomical and visual results of eyes with naive myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) in patients treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is a retrospective, non-randomized, comperative, intervetional study. One hundred fourteen eyes of 114 patients with mCNV who underwent intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) or intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) monotherapy injections were enrolled into the study. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) were compared among the groups during the follow-up periods at the beginning, months 1, 3, 6, 12, and the final visit.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 47.76 ± 10.57 years (range, 33-72 years) and the mean follow-up period was 23.34 ± 6.81 months (range, 13-38 months). The mean BCVA denoted a significantly improve at each group (p < 0.05). In terms of an inter-group analysis of all 3 groups, at months 1, 6, and 12 and final visit, the BCVA were statistically significantly better in the IVA group when compared to both IVB and IVR groups (p = 0.021, p = 0.032, p = 0.024, p = 0.012). There was a significant decrease in CMT following IVB (236.49 ± 40.91 μm-190.74 ± 50.12 μm), IVA (232.91 ± 46.29 μm-193.73 ± 46.81 μm) and IVR (234.78 ± 45.37 μm-192.21 ± 37.27 μm) between baseline and final visit (p = 0.018, p = 0.002, p < 0.001, respectively). There was a statistically significant decrease in SFCT values between baseline and final examination only in the IVA group (p < 0.001). The mean number of injections were 9.18 ± 3.18 (range; 3 to 13) in IVB, 6.46 ± 2.93 (range; 3-11) in IVR and 4.45 ± 1.42 (range; 2-7) in IVA (p = 0.028).
conclusionAll three anti-VEGFs were found to be effective in terms of visual results in patients with mCNV. However, we demonstrated that IVA reduces the need for anti-VEGF when compared to patients who received both IVB and IVR. Furthermore, IVA induced a prominent reduction in SFCT, whereas IVR and IVB did not have a significant action on SFCT.
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.