CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal and Macular SurgeryOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.

Laser Photocoagulation of Subfoveal Neovascular Lesions of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Updated Findings From Two Clinical Trials

·1993·Archives of Ophthalmology
DOI 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090090052019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report 3- and 4-year visual outcomes in eyes followed up in two randomized clinical trials of laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eyes of consenting patients were assigned randomly to laser treatment or no treatment. Visual acuity, reading speed, and contrast threshold were measured before random assignment, 3 and 6 months later, and at 6-month intervals thereafter. Visual acuities of treated and untreated eyes were compared 4 years after enrollment, in the Subfoveal New CNV Study (eyes without prior laser treatment), and 3 years after enrollment, in the Subfoveal Recurrent CNV Study (eyes with subfoveal recurrent CNV at the periphery of an earlier laser treatment scar). RESULTS: Four years after enrollment in the Subfoveal New CNV Study, 39 (47%) of 83 untreated eyes and 17 (22%) of 77 laser-treated eyes had lost 6 or more lines of visual acuity from baseline levels (P = .002). At the 3-year examination in the Subfoveal Recurrent CNV Study, 21 (36%) of 58 untreated eyes and six (12%) of 49 treated eyes had lost 6 or more lines of visual acuity from baseline levels (P = .009). Comparisons based on contrast threshold and reading speed for enlarged text also favored laser treatment in both trials. CONCLUSIONS: Stronger evidence favoring laser photocoagulation of subfoveal CNV has been provided by continued follow-up of patients enrolled in these two clinical trials. The benefits of laser treatment have persisted through at least 4 years of follow-up in the Subfoveal New CNV Study and 3 years of follow-up in the Subfoveal Recurrent CNV Study.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090090052019

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 304

Related

See all

Metadata

Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1993-09-01
Volume
111
Issue
9
Pages
1200
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archopht.1993.01090090052019
OpenAlex
W4251720370
Cited by
303
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ey002546-07, 5u01ey002547-07)
  • National Eye Institute (EY02547, EY02546, EY02548)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal and Macular Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Keywords
laser photocoagulation, subfoveal choroidal neovascularization, age-related macular degeneration, visual acuity outcomes, long-term follow-up, recurrent CNVs, contrast threshold, reading speed
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Choroid, Female, Fluorescein Angiography, Follow-Up Studies, Fovea Centralis, Fundus Oculi, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Neovascularization, Pathologic, Reading, Recurrence, Sensory Thresholds, Visual Acuity, Contrast Sensitivity, Laser Coagulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review