Trial reportActa ophthalmologica2022
Navigated laser and aflibercept versus aflibercept monotherapy in treatment-naïve branch retinal vein occlusion: A 12-month randomized trial.
Trial report in Acta ophthalmologica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct randomized evidence comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Visual Acuity and Retinal Thickness and Sensitivity after Intravitreal Ranibizumab Injection for Macular Edema in Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Predictive value of retinal oximetry, optical coherence tomography angiography and microperimetry in patients with treatment-naïve branch retinal vein occlusion.International journal of retina and vitreous · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAngiostatic agents have proven effective in the treatment of macular oedema in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). However, treatment is inconvenient and expensive, and novel treatment regimens are warranted. We aimed to evaluate if combination treatment of navigated central retinal laser and aflibercept lowered the treatment burden in these patients.
methodsTreatment-naïve patients with BRVO and macular oedema were included at two centres and randomized 1:1 to three monthly injections of 2.0 mg aflibercept with (Group A) or without (Group B) navigated central laser, followed by aflibercept as needed from month 4 through 12. Re-treatment need was evaluated, and secondary endpoints included functional and anatomical outcomes and safety evaluated by retinal microperimetry.
resultsWe evaluated 41 eyes of 41 patients with a mean age of 69.6 years. Baseline median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 70.0 letters, and median central retinal thickness (CRT) was 502 μm with no difference between Groups A (n = 21) and B (n = 20). Percentage of patients needing re-treatment after month three was 71% and 80% (p = 0.72). At month 12, groups did not differ in number of injections after loading (1 versus 2, p = 0.43), change in BCVA (+12.8 versus +15.1 letters, p = 0.48), CRT (-195 versus -181 μm, p = 0.82), or retinal sensitivity (+3.3 versus +4.1 dB, p = 0.67).
conclusionIn treatment-naïve BRVO patients, addition of navigated central laser to aflibercept did not lower treatment burden or affect functional or anatomical outcomes. A low number of intravitreal injections were needed for successful outcome in both treatment arms.
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.