ArticleOphthalmology science
Comparison of Methods of Clinical Trial Emulation Utilizing Data From the Comparison of AMD Treatment Trial (CATT) and the IRIS® Registry.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Defining a standards framework for ophthalmology real-world data methodologies through an expert-led Delphi consensus.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We used exact matching and inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) using real-world data (RWD) from the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) to emulate the 2 pro re nata ( Design: Retrospective cohort study utilizing deidentified electronic health record registry data and patient-level deidentified clinical trial data. Subjects: All treatment-naive patient eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab only for 1 year from either the CATT or the IRIS Registry. Methods: Patients were identified in the IRIS Registry between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. After all nonimaging-based inclusion and exclusion criteria from the CATT were applied, patient eyes receiving bevacizumab or ranibizumab only on a Main Outcome Measures: Mean change in visual acuity, in approximated ETDRS letters, between baseline and 1 year for the IRIS Registry prn treatment arms generated by exact matching and IPSW. Results: We identified 427 eyes treated with ranibizumab Conclusions: Both exact matching and IPSW produced similar results in emulating the Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.