Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37814332›Full record

SynthesisItalian journal of pediatrics2023

The efficacy and ocular safety following aflibercept, conbercept, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and laser for retinopathy of prematurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jing Chen, Qingfei Hao, Jing Zhang, Yanna Du, Haoming Chen, Xiuyong Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jing Chen *Department of Neonatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
Qingfei Hao *Department of Neonatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Neonatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
Yanna DuDepartment of Neonatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
Haoming ChenDepartment of Neonatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
Xiuyong ChengDepartment of Neonatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China. fccchengxy@zzu.edu.cn.
First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is typically treated with laser photocoagulation and/or intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). To the best of our knowledge, most systematic reviews have focused on comparing anti-VEGF against laser treatment while comparisons between different anti-VEGF agents are lacking. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of different anti-VEGF agents or laser after primary ROP therapy.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases up to November 2022. We included studies that used anti-VEGF or laser for ROP with comparable cohorts.

resultsOverall, 44 studies were included in this meta-analysis. When comparing anti-VGEF with laser, we found that the anti-VEGF group had a significantly higher retreatment rate (RR = 1.56, 95%CI = [1.06, 2.31], p = 0.03), a longer time from treatment to retreatment (WMD = 5.99 weeks, 95%CI = [4.03, 7.95], p < 0.001), a lower retinal detachment rate (RR = 0.55, 95%CI = [0.30, 0.91], p = 0.02), higher spherical equivalent (WMD = 1.69D, 95%CI = [0.61, 2.77], p = 0.002), lower myopia rate (RR = 0.69, 95%CI = [0.50, 0.97], p = 0.03) and lower anisometropia rate (RR = 0.44, 95%CI = [0.29, 0.67], p = 0.0001). In comparisons between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, the intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) group was associated with higher recurrence rate (RR = 2.02, 95%CI = [1.49, 2.73], p < 0.0001), higher retreatment rate (RR = 1.70, 95%CI = [1.17, 2.47], p = 0.0006), and lower high myopia rate (RR = 0.31, 95%CI = [0.12, 0.77], p = 0.01). Similarly, when compared to aflibercept and conbercept, the IVR cohort also demonstrated higher recurrence and retreatment rates. While no significant differences were observed in any of the variables included in the statistical analysis in the comparison between bevacizumab and aflibercept.

conclusionsAnti-VEGF was associated with higher retreatment and lesser incidence of myopia as compared to laser. Laser therapy was linked to more complications like retinal detachment and myopia. Ranibizumab exhibited higher recurrence and retreatment rates compared to bevacizumab, aflibercept, and conbercept.

Indexed as

LasersRanibizumabRetinopathy of PrematurityVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabHumansInfant, NewbornMyopiaReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorRecombinant Fusion ProteinsRetinal DetachmentafliberceptAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabKH902 fusion proteinRanibizumabReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorRecombinant Fusion ProteinsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAfliberceptBevacizumabConberceptLaserRanibizumabRetinopathy of prematurity

Identifiers

PMID37814332
PMCPMC10561404
OpenAlexW4387452451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.