ReviewEye (London, England)2023
Perspectives from clinical trials: is geographic atrophy one disease?
Review in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obstructive Sleep Apnea Accelerates Progression of Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Three-Year Prospective Cohort Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of Geographic Atrophy: A Multi-Center, Multi-Device Validation in a Real-World Clinical Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Systemic C-reactive protein levels in patients with geographic atrophy stratified by sex.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Geographic Atrophy Measurements Between Blue-Light Heidelberg Standard Field and Green-Light Optos Ultrawide Field Autofluorescence.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Rescue of cone and rod photoreceptor function in a CDHR1-model of age-related retinal degeneration.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024Article
- Strong versus Weak Data Labeling for Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in the Measurement of Geographic Atrophy.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Geographic atrophy (GA) is currently an untreatable condition. Emerging evidence from recent clinical trials show that anti-complement therapy may be a successful treatment option. However, several trials in this therapy area have failed as well. This raises several questions. Firstly, does complement therapy work for all patients with GA? Secondly, is GA one disease? Can we assume that these failed clinical trials are due to ineffective interventions or are they due to flawed clinical trial designs, heterogeneity in GA progression rates or differences in study cohorts? In this article we try to answer these questions by providing an overview of the challenges of designing and interpreting outcomes of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in GA. These include differing inclusion-exclusion criteria, heterogeneous progression rates of the disease, outcome choices and confounders.
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.