Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39198703›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2024

Fibrosis in age-related neovascular macular degeneration in the anti-VEGF era.

Beatriz G Armendariz, Usha Chakravarthy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor conundrum.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Beatriz G ArmendarizRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, 124 Grenzacherstrasse, 4058, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5473-8164
Usha ChakravarthyHonorary and Emerita Professor of Ophthalmology, Queens University of Belfast, Belfast, UK. u.chakravarthy@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2606-3734

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The natural history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) leads to scarring and loss of vision. Since the advent of anti-VEGF therapies, which are very effective for controlling exudation, large disciform scars are rarely encountered in the clinic. However long term studies show that smaller and less severe fibrotic scars are not uncommon and develop over time despite optimal treatment. This means that additional mechanisms of action may be required to completely address this condition. To permit new treatments, a proper understanding of the clinical impact of fibrosis is required. This review is focused on clinical aspects of fibrosis and summarises recent data on biomarkers, prevalence, causes, consequences, and therapies, highlighting the most important and urgent topics to tackle in order to advance in the treatment of fibrosis.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsFibrosisVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AWet Macular DegenerationBiomarkersChoroidal NeovascularizationHumansMacular DegenerationAngiogenesis InhibitorsBiomarkersVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, human

Identifiers

PMID39198703
PMCPMC11584703

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.