ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Two-year treatment outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with type 3 macular neovascularisation.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) with type 3 macular neovascularisation (MNV) carries a high risk of macular atrophy (MA) during anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment. Previous studies have suggested that a greater injection burden is associated with a higher MA risk. We evaluated 2-year outcomes of patients with nAMD with type 3 MNV following the treat and extend (TAE) and pro re nata (PRN) regimens and identified the risk factors for MA. SUBJECTS: This retrospective study included 97 eyes of 68 treatment-naïve nAMD patients with type 3 MNV. All eyes received monthly anti-VEGF injections for 3 months as a loading phase and were followed for >2 years. Analyses were performed at the eye level for clinical outcomes; for risk-factor analyses of incident MA, one eye per patient was included. Outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT).
resultsCompared with PRN, TAE achieved better BCVA at 24 months (mean difference, -0.26 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.02). CMT was lower with TAE at 12 months (mean difference, -47.0 µm; 95% CI, -86.1 to -8.0). Retinal haemorrhage recurrence was less frequent with TAE (16.4% vs. 52.4%; risk difference, -36.0%; 95% CI, -57.8% to -9.5%). In multivariable models, greater injection number and thinner baseline central choroidal thickness were associated with incident MA (P < 0.05), whereas regimen type itself was not.
conclusionsDespite a higher injection burden, TAE maintained superior functional outcomes over two years relative to PRN.
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.