Trial reportScientific reports2026
Association between screening duration and treatment outcomes in the clinical trials of ranibizumab and aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical implications of screening duration prior to treatment initiation in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) are not well understood. This post hoc analysis investigated whether screening duration influences treatment outcomes in two multinational phase 3 randomized clinical trials, SB11 (ranibizumab biosimilar) and SB15 (aflibercept biosimilar), comprising a total of 1,152 participants (704 from the SB11 trial and 448 from the SB15 trial) with nAMD. Screening duration was assessed in relation to changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) at weeks 8 and 48. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusted for age and baseline BCVA/CST, showed no significant associations between screening duration and either visual or anatomical outcomes at both time points. Linear regression coefficients for screening duration were not statistically significant for BCVA or CST at week 8 (BCVA: B = - 0.058, P = 0.242; CST: B = - 0.050, P = 0.908) or at week 48 (BCVA: B = - 0.015, P = 0.843; CST: B = 0.036, P = 0.930). These findings suggest that a screening period of up to 21 days does not adversely affect treatment efficacy in clinical trial settings and support the clinical feasibility of short pre-treatment delays.
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.