Cited by 294Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal and Macular SurgeryRetinal Imaging and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Macular Morphology and Visual Acuity in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials

Open access

Abstract

Objective To describe the effects of treatment for 1 year with ranibizumab or bevacizumab on macular morphology and the association of macular morphology with visual acuity (VA) in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).Design Prospective cohort study within a randomized clinical trial.Participants Participants in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials.Methods Participants were assigned randomly to treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab on a monthly or as-needed schedule. Optical coherence tomography (OCT), fluorescein angiography (FA), color fundus photography (FP), and VA testing were performed periodically throughout 52 weeks. Masked readers graded images. General linear models were applied to evaluate effects of time and treatment on outcomes.Main outcome measures Fluid type and location and thickness by OCT, size, and lesion composition on FP, FA, and VA.Results Intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), subretinal pigment epithelium fluid, and retinal, subretinal, and subretinal tissue complex thickness decreased in all treatment groups. A higher proportion of eyes treated monthly with ranibizumab had fluid resolution at 4 weeks, and the difference persisted through 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, there was little association between the presence of fluid of any type (without regard to fluid location) and the mean VA. However, at all time points, eyes with residual IRF, especially foveal IRF, had worse mean VA (9 letters) than those without IRF. Eyes with abnormally thin (<120 μm) or thick (>212 μm) retinas had worse VA than those with normal thickness (120-212 μm). At week 52, eyes with larger neovascular lesions or with foveal scar had worse VA than eyes without these features.Conclusions Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy reduced lesion activity and improved VA in all treatment groups. At all time points, eyes with residual IRF had worse VA than those without. Eyes with abnormally thin or thick retinas, residual large lesions, and scar also had worse VA. Monthly ranibizumab dosing yielded more eyes with no fluid and an abnormally thin retina, although the long-term significance is unknown. These results have important treatment implications in eyes undergoing anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular AMD.Financial disclosure(s) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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.2013.01.073

Cites

14 of 14 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

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?

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 15 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–292 of 292

Metadata

Authors
Jaffe, G. J., Martin, D. F., Toth, C. A., Daniel, E., Maguire, M. G., Ying, G.-S., Grunwald, J. E., & Huang, J.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Jaffe, Glenn J.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
120
Issue
9
Pages
1860-1870
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074575505
Cited by
294
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (U10EY017825, U10EY017826, U10EY017823, U10EY017828)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal and Macular Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
neovascular age-related macular degeneration, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, anti-VEGF therapy, macular morphology, visual acuity, intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, retinal thickness, lesion activity, macular edema
MeSH terms
Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, Fluorescein Angiography, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Macula Lutea, Macular Degeneration, Prospective Studies, Visual Acuity, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Subretinal Fluid, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

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