ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Clinical outcomes of different regimens of intravitreal Conbercept for the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. 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.
- Prognostic factors for intravitreal conbercept in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the clinical outcomes of two intravitreal injection regimens of Conbercept used to treat choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia (PM-CNV).
methodsA total of 72 eyes of 72 patients were treated: 39 eyes received a single injection followed by treatment pro re nata (1 + PRN); 33 eyes first received 3 consecutive monthly injections (3 + PRN) then followed by PRN. After initial injection, patients were followed up for 12 months.
resultsThe mean age of 72 patients was 45.3 ± 5.1 years, with the mean diopter of -10.62 ± 3.24D. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.86 ± 0.23 LogMAR with 1 + PRN and 0.90 ± 0.19 LogMAR with 3 + PRN at baseline (P = 0.422), 0.36 ± 0.07 and 0.33 ± 0.05 LogMAR at month 3 (P = 0.026); and 0.33 ± 0.03 and 0.32 ± 0.02 LogMAR at month 12 (P = 0.096). The central retinal thickness (CRT) was 333.5 ± 22.7 μm with 1 + PRN and 341.2 ± 20.9 μm with 3 + PRN at baseline (P = 0.139), 281.53 ± 10.28 and 273.15 ± 13.24 μm at month 3 (P = 0.004); 266.83 ± 8.14 and 264.91 ± 9.27 μm at month 12 (P = 0.350). The number of injections in the 1 + PRN group was significantly lower than that observed in the 3 + PRN group (2.15 ± 1.06 versus 3.36 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). During the follow-up, no serious ocular complications and adverse reactions related to Conbercept and injections occurred.
conclusionsBoth injection regimens resulted in similar visual outcomes in PM-CNV patients. The 1 + PRN regimen had fewer injections and might be more suitable in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37561252What 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.