ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Comparative efficacy of subretinal and intravitreal conbercept injections in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy.
Article in International 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
purposeTo compare the clinical efficacy of subretinal versus intravitreal conbercept injections in the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV).
methodsIn this retrospective, single-center study, 102 consecutive PCV patients treated between July 2022 and October 2023 were divided into two groups based on the injection regimen: subretinal injections (n = 55, 1 + PRN regimen) and intravitreal injections (n = 47, 3 + PRN regimen) of conbercept. Comprehensive assessments-including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA)-were performed at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Outcome measures included changes in BCVA, macular retinal thickness (MRT), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), pigment epithelial detachment (PED) height, number of injections, and polyp regression rates.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Over the 12-month follow-up, the subretinal injection group showed significantly greater improvement in BCVA (Month 12: 0.21 ± 0.23 logMAR vs. 0.49 ± 0.42 logMAR; P < 0.001). Additionally, reductions in MRT, SFCT, and PED height were significantly more pronounced in the subretinal group compared with the intravitreal group (all P < 0.001). The subretinal group also required fewer injections (1.82 ± 0.94 vs. 3.85 ± 2.11; P < 0.001) and achieved a significantly higher rate of polyp regression (69.1% vs. 42.6%; P = 0.007). No significant ocular or systemic complications were reported in either group.
conclusionSubretinal conbercept provides superior and more durable anatomical and functional outcomes compared to intravitreal injection in patients with PCV. It also reduces treatment burden and enhances lesion regression, supporting its potential as a promising alternative therapeutic approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41026244What 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.