ArticleRomanian journal of ophthalmology
The effect of the pandemic on the intravitreal injection treatment for patients with age-related macular degeneration, regardless of lockdown periods.
Article in Romanian journal of ophthalmology. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the intravitreal injection treatment routine for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, regardless of lockdown periods. Methods: We evaluated the data of intravitreal injections between March 2020 and June 1, 2021, which was the last day of official restrictions. We divided into two groups: a regular treatment group and a group that was interrupted for at least 3 months without excuse. The initial visual acuity at the beginning of the pandemic, the last visual acuity, the visual acuity after interruption, the central macular thickness, and the interruption time were recorded. Results: A total of 156 patients' data were evaluated. There are forty-eight patients in the regular treatment group, 77 in the interruption group, and 31 in the discontinued group. The visual loss was significantly higher in the interruption group (respectively, -0.11 ± 0.19 vs. 0.03 ± 0.16, p<0.001). Central macular thickness changes were higher in the interruption group (respectively, 31.8 ± 5.7µm vs. 13.5 ± 4.6, p<0.001). The mean interruption time was 6.71 ± 2.45 months. Discussion: Half of the patients in our study interrupted their treatment during the pandemic, and this interruption had a negative impact on their visual acuity and central macular thickness. In addition to COVID-19's own high mortality and morbidity, it also had adverse effects on patients who required regular follow-up and treatment. Conclusion: Since interruptions in treatment negatively impact the prognosis of AMD, effective protocols that do not require frequent visits are necessary.
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.