SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Comparison of clinical effectiveness of conbercept and ranibizumab for treating retinopathy of prematurity: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction Models for Recurrence of Retinopathy of Prematurity after Intravitreal Ranibizumab or Laser Photocoagulation Treatment: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Conbercept combined with retinal photocoagulation significantly improves visual acuity and quality of life in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- The analysis of foveal microvascular anomalies in retinopathy of prematurity after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy using optical coherence tomography angiography.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- An Update on Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity.Journal of current ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgoundConbercept and ranibizumab have been used to treat retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). However, the clinical effectiveness of conbercept and ranibizumab remains controversial.
aimThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of conbercept and ranibizumab for treating ROP.
methodWe systematically searched Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, CQVIP, Duxiu Database, SinoMed, and X-MOL to screen relevant studies up to November 2022. Retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of conbercept and ranibizumab in treating patients with ROP were selected. The outcomes assessed were the rates of primary cure, ROP recurrence, and retreatment. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata.
resultsSeven studies (n = 989) were selected in the meta-analysis. There were 303 cases (594 eyes) treated with conbercept and 686 patients (1,318 eyes) treated with ranibizumab. Three studies reported the primary cure rate. Compared to ranibizumab, conbercept had a significantly higher primary cure rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-3.49, P < 0.05). Five studies reported the rate of ROP recurrence, and there were no significant differences between conbercept and ranibizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28-1.38, P > 0.05). Three studies reported the rate of retreatment, and the rates were not significantly different between conbercept and ranibizumab (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.21-2.93, P > 0.05).
conclusionConbercept had a higher rate of primary cure in ROP patients. More RCTs are needed to compare the efficacy of conbercept and ranibizumab in treating ROP.
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.