SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2024
Efficacy and safety of intravitreal conbercept and triamcinolone acetonide for wet age-related macular degeneration in China: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Angiopoietin-1 and Tie2-Based Dual Cell Therapy Enhances Antiangiogenic Barrier Function in a Retina-Mimetic Model for Neovascular Retinal Disease.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have investigated the efficacy and safety of Conbercept versus Triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), but the results are controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Conbercept versus Triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of wAMD.
methodsA total of seven databases were searched for literature on the treatment of wAMD with Conbercept, with the search period from database inception to May 2024. Patients in the experimental group received Conbercept treatment, while patients in the control group received Triamcinolone acetonide treatment. The observed indicators included central macular thickness, incidence of adverse reactions, clinical efficacy, and best-corrected visual acuity. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used as effect measures.
resultsA total of 12 studies with 864 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the experimental group had a significantly better central macular thickness (MD = - 42.68, 95% CI = - 55.04 ~ - 30.32, P < 0.001), clinical response rate (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.12 ~ 1.39, P < 0.001), and best-corrected visual acuity (MD = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.12 ~ 0.20, P < 0.001) compared to the control group. In terms of adverse events, the overall incidence of adverse events was lower in the experimental group (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.14 ~ 0.51, P < 0.001) compared to the control group. Specifically, the incidence of intraocular pressure elevation (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.12 ~ 0.94, P = 0.04) and intraocular inflammation (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.03 ~ 0.97, P = 0.05) was lower in the experimental group compared to the control group, but there was no significant difference in the incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage (RR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.14 ~ 3.5, P = 0.66) and corneal edema (RR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.04 ~ 1.12, P = 0.07).
conclusionConbercept demonstrated superior efficacy in treating wAMD compared to triamcinolone acetonide, with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. However, the current meta-analysis included a limited number of studies, with only two studies evaluating best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Further high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to validate these findings.
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.