ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Fight Retinal Blindness SPAIN. Report 3: clinical outcomes of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in low vision eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. A national database study.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based fluid quantification predicts clinical outcomes in diabetic macular oedema eyes treated with intravitreal dexamethasone implants: DIADEMA project.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Establishing Expert Consensus on a Unified Decision Framework for Retina Patient Care.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Visual Acuity and Intraretinal Fluid as Predictive Factors for Legal Blindness and Macular Atrophy in Neovascular AMD Eyes Treated with Anti-VEGF: A Swedish Real-World Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Treatment intervals with first-generation anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs: evaluating the unmet need in a real-world neovascular age-related macular degeneration national database.Eye (London, England) · 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare visual outcomes for low vision eyes (LVE) (<35 letters LogMAR or <20/200 Snellen) versus non-low vision eyes (NLVE) (>35 letters LogMAR or >20/200 Snellen) at the time of the first injection in a clinical practice setting.
methodsSubgroup analysis of a multicenter national database of treatment- naïve eyes neovascular age related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with anti-VEGF intravitreal injections divided into LVE and NLVE. Demographics, visual acuity (VA) at baseline and subsequent timepoints (12, 24, and 36 months), number of injections and visits data were collected using a validated web-based tool (Fight Retinal Blindness!).
results3138 eyes were included, 705 LVE and 2433 NLVE. The LVE group had the greatest VA gain (p < 0.001), at 12, 24, and 36 months (+15, +15, and +13 letters respectively). The proportion of patients with VA loss (-5 letters) differed between groups at 12, 24, and 36 and was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in NLVE. The proportion of patients with VA gain (+5 letters) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in LVE in all timeframes. The proportions of LVE that still had VA ≤ 35 letters at 12, 24, and 36 months were 54%, 54%, and 57%. Conversely, 8%, 9%, and 8% of LVE achieved VA ≥ 70 letters at 12, 24, and 36 months. LVE received fewer intravitreal injections than NLVE throughout follow-up (6, 9, 12 vs 7, 11, 15).
conclusionFindings of this study support the need for ongoing therapy in patients with initial visual acuity less than 35 letters since sustained visual improvements can be achieved and maintained for the first 3 years of treatment.
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.