ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Indications and outcome of intravitreal bevacizumab injection in a Community Eye Hospital, Nepal.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the indications and real-world treatment outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab in a resource-limited community eye hospital setting.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who received IVB injection at Hetauda Community Eye Hospital between January 2019 and December 2022. INCLUSION CRITERIA: [Formula: see text]1 IVB injection; retinal diagnosis confirmed clinically and by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) where available. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: missing baseline Visual Acuity (VA) or OCT,[Formula: see text] month follow-up. Median visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) changes were compared using Wilcoxon signed‑rank test.
resultsA total of 418 injections were administered to 247 patients (260 eyes). After excluding those lost to follow‑up, 221 patients (234 eyes) were included in the analysis. Median baseline CMT was 366 μm and improved to 236 μm (p < 0.001). Most patients received one injection (57%) followed by two injections (30%). The median baseline VA was 0.78 log MAR and remained 0.78 log MAR overall (p = 0.108), but subgroup improvements were significant in DME, nAMD, BRVO, and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).
conclusionIVB resulted in significant anatomical and functional improvements in patients with retinal diseases. The findings reflect real‑world outcomes in a community‑level eye hospital, where cost barriers limit repeated injections. The limitations of this study include its retrospective design, variable follow‑up, absence of control group, and limited numbers of injections.
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.