ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Agents in Diabetic Macular Edema.
Review in Cureus, 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
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision loss, with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents as standard therapy. However, comparative efficacy and safety remain debated. To evaluate anti-VEGF agents' efficacy/safety in DME by drug class, dosing, and baseline severity. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant meta-analysis of 21 studies (2010-2024) was conducted. Random-effects models pooled mean differences (MD) for visual acuity (VA) and central retinal thickness. Subgroup analyses assessed anti-VEGF types, dosing regimens, and baseline severity. Aflibercept showed superior VA gains in severe DME (+8.2 letters; 95% CI: 6.1-10.3) compared with bevacizumab (+3.7 letters). Faricimab demonstrated non-inferiority to ranibizumab with extended dosing (every 16 weeks; +10.1 letters). Bevacizumab biosimilars were cost-effective but required more injections. Brolucizumab was associated with a higher risk of intraocular inflammation (RR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.6-2.6). Monthly regimens outperformed PRN (MD: +2.5 letters, p < 0.001). Aflibercept remains optimal for severe DME, while faricimab reduces treatment burden. Safety and cost considerations favor individualized therapy. Heterogeneity was extremely high (I² = 97.19%), indicating substantial variability in treatment effects across studies, only partially explained by differences in drug class, dosing regimens, and baseline severity. This high heterogeneity underscores the need for personalized treatment approaches and cautious interpretation of pooled estimates.
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.