ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparison of three loading doses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of three loading doses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
methodsThis retrospective study included 49 patients with BRVO. The patients were divided into two groups: the bevacizumab-first group (n = 23) and the ranibizumab group (n = 26). Patients in the bevacizumab-first group were treated with three loading doses of bevacizumab followed by pro-re-nata (PRN) regimen of ranibizumab. Patients in the ranibizumab group received three loading doses of ranibizumab followed by PRN regimen of ranibizumab. Mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and the number of injections were evaluated.
resultsAt the end of the follow-up period, the mean changes in BCVA and CMT were not significantly different in both treatment groups. The retreatment rate in the bevacizumab-first and ranibizumab groups after the initial three injections were 65.3% and 38.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean number of injections within the follow-up period was 4.9 (SD, 2.1) in the bevacizumab-first group and 3.9 (SD, 1.5) in the ranibizumab group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.05).
conclusionThe retreatment rate was lower in the ranibizumab group after the initial three injections. Therefore, bevacizumab may be considered a clinically effective alternative to ranibizumab for the initial three loading doses in patients with BRVO- related ME, particularly when cost is a limiting factor.
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.