Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,863

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

Clinical Classification of Age-related Macular Degeneration

Open access
Ferris, Frederick L., Wilkinson, C.P., Bird, Alan, Chakravarthy, Usha, Chew, Emily, Csaky, Karl, Sadda, SriniVas R.·2013·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Objective: To develop a clinical classification system for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design: Evidence-based investigation, using a modified Delphi process. Participants: Twenty-six AMD experts, 1 neuro-ophthalmologist, 2 committee chairmen, and 1 methodologist. Methods: Each committee member completed an online assessment of statements summarizing current AMD classification criteria, indicating agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-step scale. The group met, reviewed the survey results, discussed the important components of a clinical classification system, and defined new data analyses needed to refine a classification system. After the meeting, additional data analyses from large studies were provided to the committee to provide risk estimates related to the presence of various AMD lesions. Main Outcome Measures: Delphi review of the 9-item set of statements resulting from the meeting. Results: Consensus was achieved in generating a basic clinical classification system based on fundus lesions assessed within 2 disc diameters of the fovea in persons older than 55 years. The committee agreed that a single term, age-related macular degeneration, should be used for the disease. Persons with no visible drusen or pigmentary abnormalities should be considered to have no signs of AMD. Persons with small drusen (<63 μm), also termed drupelets, should be considered to have normal aging changes with no clinically relevant increased risk of late AMD developing. Persons with medium drusen (≥63–<125 μm), but without pigmentary abnormalities thought to be related to AMD, should be considered to have early AMD. Persons with large drusen or with pigmentary abnormalities associated with at least medium drusen should be considered to have intermediate AMD. Persons with lesions associated with neovascular AMD or geographic atrophy should be considered to have late AMD. Five-year risks of progressing to late AMD are estimated to increase approximately 100 fold, ranging from a 0.5% 5-year risk for normal aging changes to a 50% risk for the highest intermediate AMD risk group. Conclusions: The proposed basic clinical classification scale seems to be of value in predicting the risk of late AMD. Incorporating consistent nomenclature into the practice patterns of all eye care providers may improve communication and patient care.

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.ophtha.2012.10.036

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

Cited by

See all 1,863

Metadata

Authors
Ferris, F. L., Wilkinson, C. P., Bird, A., Chakravarthy, U., Chew, E., Csaky, K., & Sadda, S. R.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
844-851
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972642682
Cited by
1,863
References
1
FWCI
62.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Clinical Classification of Age-related Macular Degeneration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.036
The paper
Ferris, F. L., Wilkinson, C. P., Bird, A., Chakravarthy, U., Chew, E., Csaky, K., & Sadda, S. R. (2013). Clinical Classification of Age-related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.036

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.