ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
SRF and SHRM in nAMD: Retrospective Analysis of Visual Prognosis.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the correlation between subretinal fluid (SRF) and subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM) with visual prognosis in neovascular age related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 60 nAMD patients diagnosed at our ophthalmology department from March 2017 to December 2024. All patients received intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections monthly for the first 3 months, followed by pro re nata (PRN) treatment for the subsequent 9 months. Quantitative measurements of SRF and SHRM (height and width on OCT) were collected, along with patient demographics, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central foveal thickness (CMT). Results: After 12 months of treatment, BCVA, CMT, and SRF parameters significantly improved (P < 0.05). The visual improvement group showed superior reductions in SRF and SHRM height compared to the nonimprovement group (P < 0.05). Greater baseline SRF thickness (>180 μm) was significantly associated with better final visual acuity (P = 0.034), while baseline SHRM presence correlated with worse final BCVA and CMT (P < 0.05). These findings indicate that SRF serves as a favorable prognostic indicator, whereas SHRM is a key predictor of poor visual outcomes (P = 0.001). Discussion: SRF and SHRM morphological features are linked to nAMD treatment response. SRF thickness positively correlates with visual improvement, serving as a prognostic indicator. Persistent SHRM, however, is associated with fibrotic components that may impair retinal function, making it a key parameter for poor outcomes. These findings align with prior studies, highlighting the importance of quantitative SRF and SHRM assessment in predicting treatment response. Conclusion: SRF and SHRM are clinically significant biomarkers in nAMD treatment, effectively predicting visual prognosis and guiding individualized therapeutic strategies. Their quantitative evaluation may aid in optimizing treatment tolerance strategies and improving real world clinical outcomes.
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.