ArticleJournal of vitreoretinal diseases
Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: An 8-Year Experience at a Tertiary Eye Center.
Article in Journal of vitreoretinal diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This work aims to investigate real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion in the antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) era. Methods: A retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative study was conducted on eyes diagnosed with branch retinal vein occlusion at a single tertiary center between 2009 and 2017. Medical history, treatment patterns, and visual acuity outcomes were examined. Subanalysis was performed for eyes that met the eligibility criteria for the BRAVO (Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema Following Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion) trial. Results: A total of 315 eyes were included, of which 244 were treatment naive. In all eyes, the most common first treatment was the following: intravitreal bevacizumab (38.4%), aflibercept (15.1%), ranibizumab (8.1%), sectoral scatter laser (6.2%), and triamcinolone (3.1%). At 1 year, treatment-naive eyes had received an average of 2.43 anti-VEGF injections. During follow-up, treatment-naive eyes gained an average of 0.21 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study lines. Forty eyes that met BRAVO trial criteria received an average of 5.05 anti-VEGF injections in the first year and gained an average of 1.83 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study lines. Conclusions: This real-world cohort received fewer anti-VEGF injections at year 1 and experienced less improvement in visual acuity during the course of treatment than clinical trial participants. Trial-eligible patients received more injections and had greater visual gains than those who would not have been eligible for the trial.
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.