ArticlePloS one2025
Visual fields after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for retinopathy of prematurity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Anti-VEGF versus laser photocoagulation for ROP treatment.Bioinformation · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is known that laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) can cause visual field defects. There are no reports comparing the visual fields of ROP patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy and those of normal controls. A retrospective cohort study was conducted for the anti-VEGF therapy group and a prospective study was carried out for the normal control group. Visual fields were tested using Goldmann perimetry. The viewing angles in eight directions (upper, nasal-upper, nasal, nasal-lower, lower, temporal-lower, temporal and temporal-upper) and the total angle were compared between the two groups. Children aged 4 years and older who could undergo a visual field test were included. The anti-VEGF therapy group comprised children treated for Type 1 ROP with intravitreal injections of bevacizumab or ranibizumab between April 2010 and September 2019. The normal control group comprised children with best-corrected visual acuity of 1.0 or better, and without a history of any ophthalmologic diseases that cause visual field defects. Thirteen eyes of 7 patients in the anti-VEGF therapy group and 10 eyes of 5 patients in the normal control group met the criteria. The visual field angles were significantly narrower in the anti-VEGF therapy group, compared with the normal control group, for the total, and the upper, nasal-upper, nasal-lower, lower, temporal-lower, temporal and temporal-upper directions (502 versus 540 degrees, P = 0.002; 53 versus 57 degrees, P = 0.02; 55 versus 62 degrees, P = 0.04; 56 versus 61 degrees, P = 0.005; 60 versus 66 degrees, P = 0.005; 72 versus 77 degrees, P = 0.04; 82 versus 90 degrees, P = 0.005; and 62 versus 72 degrees, P = 0.002, respectively). Patients with ROP may exhibit narrower-than-normal visual fields after anti-VEGF therapy.
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.