ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Discordance Between Eye-Specific Clinical Outcomes and Patient-Reported Visual Function After Faricimab Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Two-Case Report.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neovascular age-related macular degeneration is a retinal disease of older adults causing central vision loss associated with macular neovascularization. Treatment response is commonly evaluated using visual acuity and retinal morphology. These measures may not fully reflect patient-perceived benefit. We report two older adults with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with faricimab who demonstrated discordance between clinical and patient-reported outcomes. In the first case, best-corrected visual acuity changed from 20/200 to 20/180 and central retinal thickness decreased from 480 to 389 µm, whereas the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score increased from 33.87 to 60.99 and the exploratory ordinal colour-vividness rating was 25 at baseline and 100 at follow-up. In the second case, best-corrected visual acuity improved from 20/100 to 20/45 and central retinal thickness decreased from 341 to 186 µm, whereas the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score declined from 67.08 to 33.17 and the exploratory ordinal colour-vividness rating was 75 at baseline and 25 at follow-up. Changes in patient-reported visual functioning may not always parallel conventional clinical outcomes, while the contrasting exploratory colour-vividness ratings observed in these two cases warrant further investigation.
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.