ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2022
Clinical outcome using a modified treat-and-extend protocol for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Therapy in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- The Effect of Glucagon-like-Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Diabetic Retinopathy Progression, Central Subfield Thickness, and Response to Intravitreal Injections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Two-year Outcomes of Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection for Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration with "Observe before Treat-and-Extend" Method.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare outcome between patients treated using a modified treat-and-extend (mT&E) protocol and patients treated using a conventional T&E protocol.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of two groups of treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients within a single centre were evaluated. One group treated using the conventional T&E protocol, with visual acuity, dilated fundus examination (DFE) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) performed at each visit. The second group treated using the mT&E protocol in which visual acuity and DFE were performed only every three visits. The main outcome measures were time spent per clinical visit, visual and anatomical outcomes measured for 36 months.
resultsThe T&E and mT&E groups included 135 eyes in 116 patients and 119 eyes in 94 patients, respectively, with similar baseline characteristics. At 36 months, the number of injections administered (7.9±2.9 vs 8.1±2.3 injections, respectively; p=0.55), the percentage of eyes that gained ≥15 Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (23% vs 25.2%, respectively; p=0.39) and the percentage of eyes that lost ≥15 ETDRS letters (21.5% vs 17.7%; p=0.43, respectively) were similar between the T&E and mT&E groups. However, waiting and contact time were reduced during the OCT-only visits compared with the full visits, with an average of 41 min saved per patient encounter.
conclusionsBoth protocols yielded similar visual and anatomical outcomes. However, the mT&E protocol reduced the number of full visits, with considerably less time spent at the clinic.
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.