Response to commentary on: A prospective, randomized, parallel group, double blind, multicenter study to compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Lupin's ranibizumab with Lucentis in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
   Pooled it

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Commentary: A prospective, randomized, parallel group, double blind, multicenter study to compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Lupin's ranibizumab with lucentis in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.2022

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as