ArticleOphthalmology science2021
Temporal Trends in the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: An AAO IRIS® Registry Analysis.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Outcomes Following Infectious Endophthalmitis from Intravitreal Injections of Biologic Drugs: An Intelligent Research in Sight Registry Retrospective Analysis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Who Gets Panretinal Photocoagulation? National Patterns in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Treatment.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Multimodal AI fuses proteomic and EHR data for rational prioritization of protein biomarkers in diabetic retinopathy.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Identifying the mechanism of missingness for unspecified diabetic retinopathy disease severity in the electronic health record: an IRIS® Registry analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Determining the Superiority of Vitrectomy vs Aflibercept for Treating Dense Diabetic Vitreous Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Variations in Electronic Health Record-Based Definitions of Diabetic Retinopathy Cohorts: A Literature Review and Quantitative Analysis.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
- Developing Laterality-Specific Computable Phenotypes from Electronic Health Record Data, Employing Treatment-Warranted Diabetic Macular Edema as a Use Case.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined how treatment patterns for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) have changed over time using clinical registry data from the AAO IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). Design: A retrospective cohort analysis using the IRIS Registry database spanning 2013-2017. Participants: A total of 141 317 patients with newly diagnosed PDR (International Classification of Diseases [ICD], Tenth Revision, codes E08.35, E09.35, E10.35, E11.35, and E13.35 and ICD, Ninth Revision, code 362.02) were included. Methods: Comparison analyses were conducted using Tukey and chi-square tests, and time-trend analyses were conducted using Mann-Kendall tests and Theil-Sen slopes. Main Outcome Measures: Patient characteristics including age, gender, and laterality; whether patients received intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (IVI) only, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) only, both IVI and PRP (IVI+PRP), or observation; intravitreal drug data; and diabetic macular edema (DME) status were compared. Results: From 2013-2017, the average age of PDR diagnosis was 59.2 years, with 53.3% of patients being male. Sixty-two thousand one hundred five newly diagnosed PDR patients (43.9%) received IVI, 32 293 patients (27.1%) received PRP, 27 664 patients (19.6%) received IVI+PRP, and 13 255 patients (9.4%) underwent observation. In 2013, more PDR patients undergoing treatment received PRP only (47.5%) than IVI only (37.3%) or IVI+PRP (15.1%). From 2013 to 2017, the percentage of patients treated with PRP only decreased by 5.6% per year ( Conclusions: In this cohort analysis of the IRIS Registry, IVI surpassed PRP as the more common method of treating newly diagnosed PDR from 2013 to 2017, with bevacizumab administered in more than two thirds of IVIs.
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.