ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Three Monthly Injections Versus One Initial Injection of Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: 12-Month Results of a Prospective Randomized Study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of as-needed intravitreal injection compared to 3-monthly loading of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for branch retinal vein occlusion.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of three loading doses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion.BMC ophthalmology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo compare three monthly injections versus one initial injection of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) followed by pro re nata (PRN) dosing to treat macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
methodsSeventy-four patients were randomized (1:1) to the 3 + PRN or 1 + PRN groups. Patients underwent monthly evaluations and additional IVR injections were administered if the retreatment criteria were met. The functional and anatomical outcomes were recorded. The factors associated with the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were analyzed.
resultsSixty-nine patients (93.2%) completed the study. At 12 months, the mean gain in BCVA was 12.9 letters in the 3 + PRN group and 14.3 letters in the 1 + PRN group, which was not significant (P = 0.59). The mean reduction in central macular thickness was 297.8 μm in the 3 + PRN group and 300.2 μm in the 1 + PRN group (P = 0.96). The macular vascular density changes of the superficial and deep capillary plexuses were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.99 and 0.70, respectively). The mean number of IVR injections was 5.0 in the 3 + PRN group and 4.2 in the 1 + PRN group (P = 0.17). The incidence of retinal neovascularization was similar in both groups (P = 0.67). The baseline BCVA, but not the treatment regimen, was significantly associated with the change in BCVA (P < 0.01).
conclusionSignificant gains in BCVA and maintenance of macular perfusion were achieved in BRVO eyes treated with the 3 + PRN or 1 + PRN regimens. Baseline BCVA was a prognostic factor for the visual improvement.
trial registrationA prospective randomized controlled trial to compare the 1 + PRN and 3 + PRN regimen in the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (ChiCTR2000038086).
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.