ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Relative yield of retinal imaging versus clinical exam in following neovascular exudative age related macular degeneration.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare therapeutic decisions between 3 diagnostic protocols and to assess the need for in-person physical doctor-patient encounter in follow up and treatment of neovascular exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
methodsAnalysis of 88 eyes of 88 unique patients with neovascular AMD who were routinely followed at our medical retina clinic. A retinal specialist reviewed all images in advance and wrote his decisions. He later attended an in-person encounters with all patients and documented his decisions. Masking was done by not exposing any identifying information to the specialist and by randomizing patient's images order before the in-person encounter. Therapeutic decisions regarding intravitreal injections intervals and agent selection were made based on three protocols: (1) optic coherence tomography (OCT); (2) OCT/Ultra-widefield (UWF) color image; (3) OCT/UWF/full clinical exam. Visual acuity (VA) was incorporated into all protocols.
resultsWe found an agreement of 93% between those protocols regarding the intervals of injections, and of 100% regarding injection agent selection. When comparing OCT, OCT/UWF and OCT/UWF/clinical exam guided decision making, there were no discrepancies between OCT and OCT/UWF. There were 6 out of 88 discrepancies (7%) between OCT/UWF and OCT/UWF/clinical exam. Of those 6 discrepancies, all were regarding intervals (Bland-Altman bias = - 0.2386). All discrepancies between OCT/UWF and OCT/UWF/Clinical exam were due to patients' preferences, socioeconomic issues and fellow eye considerations, addressed during the face-to-face encounter with patients. Physical examination itself did not affect decision making.
conclusionsNeovascular exudative AMD follow up and treatment decisions can be guided by VA and OCT, with UWF adding important information regarding macula and peripheral retina, but rarely affecting decision making. However, decision making may also be driven by patients' preferences and other considerations that are being made only during the face-to-face visit and discussion. Thus, every approach supporting imaging only decision making, must take these factors into account.
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.