ArticleEuropean journal of ophthalmology2026
Real-World outcomes of intravitreal treatment switching in retinal diseases: Analysis of 3,038 treated cases.
Article in European journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo evaluate the frequency and patterns of intravitreal therapy (IVT) switching in retinal diseases and describe associated visual acuity outcomes in real-world clinical practice.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective, monocentric study evaluated consecutive IVT-treated cases at a tertiary retina unit. Demographic data, diagnoses, initial agent, injection number, and treatment switches were recorded. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, LogMAR) was assessed at baseline and final follow-up. Switching was defined as a change to another anti-VEGF agent or intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant for inadequate functional and/or anatomical response. BCVA changes were compared using appropriate tests, stratified by indication (diabetic macular edema [DME], neovascular age-related macular degeneration [nAMD], retinal vein occlusion [RVO]).ResultsA total of 3,038 IVT-treated cases (11,345 injections) were analyzed. The main indications were DME (55.5%), nAMD (36.4%), and RVO (6.0%). Overall, 22.9% of treated cases underwent treatment switching, most frequently in DME (24.8%) and nAMD (20.8%). Within-group analyses showed significant BCVA improvement after switching in DME (p = 0.001), RVO (p = 0.032), and nAMD (p = 0.009), while non-switched groups showed no significant change. Aflibercept was the most commonly selected second-line agent (81.7%), and the aflibercept subgroup showed significant within-group BCVA improvement (
Indexed as
Identifiers
42489419What 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.