ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Comparing safety and efficacy of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab and Ranibizumab biosimilar in Retinopathy of prematurity.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor conundrum.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Review of Retinopathy of Prematurity Management in the Anti-VEGF Era: Evolving Global Paradigms, Persistent Challenges and Our AI-Assisted Future.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Short-Term Efficacy of Two-Step Treatment of Retinopathy of Prematurity in a Japanese Cohort: Anti-VEGF Therapy Followed by Routine Laser Photocoagulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Response to 'Comment on: 'Comparing safety and efficacy of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab and Ranibizumab biosimilar in Retinopathy of prematurity".Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Comment on: 'Comparing safety and efficacy of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab and Ranibizumab biosimilar in Retinopathy of prematurity'.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the safety and efficacy of Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab and Ranibizumab biosimilar in treatment of Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)
methodsRetrospective study that included newborns with type 1 ROP who received intravitreal Bevacizumab (Avastin) or Ranibizumab (Accentrix) or Ranibizumab biosimilar (Razumab). Babies were followed up as per protocol and retreatment with laser or repeat anti vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) was done in case of reactivation and surgery in case of progression to traction. Outcome measures include need for retreatment, proportion of eyes achieving vascularization up to ora and adverse events
results148 eyes of 75 babies, received intravitreal injection of which 139 eyes of 70 babies were included in our analysis. 68 eyes received bevacizumab (IVB), 31 eyes received Accentrix (IVA), 40 eyes received Razumab(IVR). The rate of retreatment was 17.6%, 32.2% and 25% for IVB, IVA and IVR respectively (p = 0.1). IVB group showed a significantly delayed reactivation (p < 0.001), while Ranibizumab and its biosimilar Razumab were comparable (p = 0.17). Vascularization up to ora was observed in 60%, 61% and 50% eyes (p = 0.76) at a median of 27, 28 and 24 weeks post-treatment (p = 0.09) in IVB, IVA and IVR groups respectively. No eyes developed intraocular inflammation or cataract.
conclusionAll three drugs were similar in their efficacy and safety profile with bevacizumab showing a later reactivation.
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.