ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Expert Consensus on Characteristics, Etiology, and Management of Chorioretinal Atrophy in Patients Treated with Voretigene Neparvovec.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. 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.
- Sustained improvement in dark-adapted sensitivity but not BCVA after voretigene neparvovec treatment in a mainland Chinese child with biallelicFrontiers in pharmacology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Voretigene neparvovec (VN), developed for the treatment of inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD) associated with confirmed biallelic Design: Review of the scientific literature and expert consensus. Participants: An international group of experts in IRD with experience treating with VN. Methods: A literature search of PubMed was performed using broad search terms to return all publications relating to VN, which were manually screened for relevance to CRA. The expert panel discussed the literature and proposed updated consensus nomenclature and suggestions for monitoring. Results: According to most reports, development of CRA does not impact visual and functional outcomes after subretinal VN injection. Longer follow-up is needed to ascertain whether CRA continues to enlarge and whether treatment outcomes can be maintained. Chorioretinal atrophy growth might be caused by a combination of multiple factors, and several hypotheses on CRA etiology based on published clinical evidence are discussed. Standard terminology and metrics for CRA would support these future research efforts. We propose using the term "injection site CRA" to refer to CRA which develops specifically at the location where the cannula touches down onto the retina. For all other CRA, we propose defining atrophy based on its retinal localization, as either "central CRA" or "peripheral CRA." Regular follow-up visits using a combination of imaging modalities with efficacy readouts are recommended to track efficacy and adverse outcomes, including CRA. Conclusions: Numerous questions remain regarding causes of CRA in Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.