Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 352

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early and Long-Term Responses to Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema: Analysis of Protocol I Data

Open access
Gonzalez, Victor H., Campbell, Joanna, Holekamp, Nancy M., Kiss, Szilárd, Loewenstein, Anat, Augustin, Albert J., Ma, Julia, Ho, Allen C., Patel, Vaishali, Whitcup, Scott M., Dugel, Pravin U.·2016·American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether early visual acuity response to ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema is associated with long-term outcome. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of randomized controlled trial data. METHODS: Pooled data from the ranibizumab plus prompt and deferred laser treatment arms of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network's Protocol I study were used to explore the relationship between early (week 12) and late (weeks 52-156) visual acuity response (mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity [CFB BCVA]; categorized improvement [<5, 5-9, or ≥10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters] in BCVA). RESULTS: In the analysis population (340 eyes), <5-, 5- to 9-, and ≥10-letter BCVA improvements occurred in 39.7%, 23.2%, and 37.1% of eyes, respectively, at 12 weeks, and 34.2%, 16.5%, and 49.3% of eyes at 156 weeks. Within each early BCVA response category (<5, 5-9, and ≥10 letters of improvement at 12 weeks), mean CFB BCVA at 52-156 weeks varied by <5 letters from that at 12 weeks. CFB BCVA and <5-letter improvement at 12 weeks showed significant positive and negative association, respectively, with CFB BCVA and ≥10-letter improvement at 52 and 156 weeks. Similar relationships were demonstrated in eyes with baseline BCVA <69 letters, and associations remained significant after multivariate adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab ± laser therapy resulted in similar rates (∼40%) of suboptimal (<5-letter) and pronounced (≥10-letter) BCVA improvement at 12 weeks. Eyes with suboptimal early BCVA response showed poorer long-term visual outcomes than eyes with pronounced early response (mean improvement 3.0 vs 13.8 letters at 156 weeks).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.012

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 352

Metadata

Authors
Gonzalez, V. H., Campbell, J., Holekamp, N. M., Kiss, S., Loewenstein, A., Augustin, A. J., Ma, J., Ho, A. C., Patel, V., Whitcup, S. M., & Dugel, P. U.
Venue
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
172
Pages
72-79
ISSN
0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2520557556
Cited by
352
References
1
FWCI
30.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early and Long-Term Responses to Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema: Analysis of Protocol I Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.012
The paper
Gonzalez, V. H., Campbell, J., Holekamp, N. M., Kiss, S., Loewenstein, A., Augustin, A. J., Ma, J., Ho, A. C., Patel, V., Whitcup, S. M., & Dugel, P. U. (2016). Early and Long-Term Responses to Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema: Analysis of Protocol I Data. American Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.