Observational studyScientific reports2024
Differences between pathologic and non-pathologic high myopia in 4-year outcomes of anti-VEGF therapy for macular neovascularization.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies for the Prevention and Control of Complications of Pathological Myopia: A Systematic Review of Research Progress from Axial Control to Target Organ Protection.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Myopic macular neovascularization treatment: A 2-year follow-up of a real-life cohort.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This retrospective observational study aimed to investigate the difference in 4-year outcomes of ranibizumab or aflibercept therapy for macular neovascularization (MNV) with high myopia between pathologic myopia (PM) and non-PM. This study was conducted at Kyoto University Hospital and included consecutive treatment-naïve eyes with active myopic MNV, in which a single intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept injection was administered, followed by a pro re nata (PRN) regimen for 4 years. Based on the META-PM study classification, eyes were assigned to the non-PM and PM groups. This study analyzed 118 eyes of 118 patients (non-PM group, 19 eyes; PM group, 99 eyes). Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were significantly better in the non-PM group (P = 0.02, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively); however, the 3-year and 4-year BCVA were not. The 4-year BCVA course was similar in both groups. However, the total number of injections over 4 years was significantly higher in the non-PM than in the PM group (4.6 ± 2.6 vs. 2.9 ± 2.6, P = 0.001). Four-year BCVA significantly correlated only with baseline BCVA in both non-PM (P = 0.047, β = 0.46) and PM groups (P < 0.001, β = 0.59). In conclusion, over the 4-year observation period, the BCVA course after anti-VEGF therapy for myopic MNV was similar in the eyes with non-PM and those with PM; however, more additional injections in a PRN regimen were required in the eyes with non-PM compared to those with PM. Thus, more frequent and careful follow-up is required for the eyes with non-PM compared with those with PM to maintain long-term BCVA.
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.