ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Comparison of intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment burden in different retinal diseases.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo compare the subjective treatment burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy (IVT) among patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME), and macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (CME). SUBJECTS/
methodsThis single-centre, cross-sectional study surveyed 393 patients at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna. All participants had received at least five anti-VEGF intravitreal injections and had been in treatment for at least six months. Data were collected via a structured questionnaire, assessing perceived treatment burden, sociodemographics, and treatment-related experiences. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, with nonparametric tests applied due to ordinal data.
resultsOf the 393 participants (nAMD: 305; CME: 55; DME: 33), 64% reported no or only slight burden from treatment frequency or injections. There was no statistically significant difference in overall treatment burden between disease groups (p > 0.4). However, the nature of the burden differed: nAMD patients most often cited fear of progressive vision loss, while CME and DME patients more frequently named the injection itself as the greatest burden. Better patient education significantly correlated with a lower perceived burden (p < 0.001). Nearly half of the patients required assistance with clinic visits.
conclusionsAlthough the overall perceived burden of anti-VEGF treatment was similar across retinal diseases, patients' specific concerns varied. Addressing these differences through personalised education and communication may help alleviate treatment-related anxiety and improve adherence. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring support strategies to individual patient experiences within long-term intravitreal treatment regimens.
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.