The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 55 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Five-Year Outcomes with Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To describe outcomes 5 years after initiation of treatment with bevacizumab or ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design Cohort study.. Participants Patients enrolled in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT). Methods Patients were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab and to 1 of 3 dosing regimens. After 2 years, patients were released from the clinical trial protocol. At approximately 5 years, patients were recalled for examination. Main Outcome Measures Visual acuity (VA) and morphologic retinal features. Results VA was obtained for 647 (71%) of 914 living patients with average follow-up time 5.5 years. The mean number of examinations for AMD care after the clinical trial ended was 25.3, and the mean number of treatments in the study eye was 15.4. Most (60%) patients were treated ≥1 times with a drug other than their randomly assigned drug. At the 5-year visit, 50% of study eyes had VA 20/40 or better and 20% had VA 20/200 or worse. Mean change in VA was −3 letters from baseline and −11 letters from 2 years. Among 467 eyes with fluorescein angiography, mean total lesion area was 12.9 mm2, a mean of 4.8 mm2 larger than at 2 years. Geographic atrophy was present in 213 (41%) of 515 gradable eyes and was subfoveal in 85 (17%). Among 555 eyes with spectral domain optical coherence tomography, 83% had fluid (61% intraretinal, 38% subretinal, and 36% sub-retinal pigment epithelium). Mean foveal total thickness was 278 μm; a decrease of 182 μm from baseline and 20 μm from 2 years. An abnormally thin retina at the foveal center (<120 μm) was present in 36%. Between 2 and 5 years, the group originally assigned to ranibizumab for 2 years lost more VA than the bevacizumab group (−4 letters; p=0.008). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in VA or morphological outcomes between drug or regimen groups. Conclusion Vision gains during the first 2 years of the trial were not maintained at 5 years. However, 50% of eyes had VA 20/40 or better, confirming anti-VEGF therapy as a major long-term therapeutic advance for neovascular AMD.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
At about five years after starting anti-VEGF therapy in CATT, visual gains achieved during the first two years were not sustained, with mean acuity falling below baseline. Nevertheless, roughly half of examined eyes still had 20/40 or better vision, supporting long-term benefit despite progressive retinal and lesion changes.
Key findings
- Among 914 living CATT participants, 647 (70.8%) had visual acuity measured at a mean of 5.5 years; mean change was −3.3 letters from baseline and −10.8 letters from year 2.
- At follow-up, 49.6% of eyes had 20/40 or better acuity and about 20% had 20/200 or worse; mean acuity was 58.9 letters (approximately 20/63).
- Morphologic worsening was common: 83.0% had fluid on OCT, 41.4% had geographic atrophy (16.5% subfoveal), mean total lesion area was 12.9 mm² (4.8 mm² larger than at 2 years), and 36.2% had foveal retinal thickness below 120 μm.
- Eyes originally assigned to ranibizumab lost more acuity between years 2 and 5 than those originally assigned to bevacizumab (−12.7 vs −8.8 letters; p=0.008); after trial release, arteriothrombotic events were reported in 7.6% of ranibizumab-origin patients versus 4.5% of bevacizumab-origin patients (p=0.04), though no such difference appeared during the randomized trial period.
Methods
- This was a follow-up cohort study of patients from the CATT randomized trial, which compared ranibizumab and bevacizumab and monthly versus as-needed dosing for neovascular AMD.
- After the 2-year trial protocol ended, patients were recalled for examination between 2014 and 2015; analyses included those with visual acuity measured 51–85 months after treatment assignment.
- Outcomes included visual acuity, OCT morphology, fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, treatment history, and serious medical events; comparisons used analysis of variance and chi-square tests.
Limitations
- The paper states that only 70.8% of living participants returned, and that returning patients were younger and had better baseline and 2-year acuity than nonparticipants, so results likely overestimate outcomes for the full CATT population.
- The paper also notes missing imaging among participants (about 14% without OCT, 19% without color photographs, and 28% without fluorescein angiography), limiting generalizability of morphologic findings.
- Because most patients changed drugs or dosing after trial release, the study provides limited ability to compare long-term drug or regimen effects; the text makes evident that post-protocol care was observational and not randomized.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 55 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Between 2 and 5 years, the group originally assigned to ranibizumab for 2 years lost more VA than the bevacizumab group (−4 letters; p=0.008).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Visual acuity measurements obtained from outside ophthalmologists are comparable to those obtained at CATT centers.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“20% had VA 20/200 or worse.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 914Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Visual acuity measurements obtained from outside ophthalmologists are comparable to those obtained at CATT centers.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean (SD) visual acuity score was 58.9 [20/63] (24.1) letters”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Visual Acuity
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 647Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Visual acuity measurements obtained from outside ophthalmologists are comparable to those obtained at CATT centers.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the percentages with subretinal fluid (37.7%) and sub-retinal pigment epithelium fluid (36.2%) at 5 years were similar to the percentages at Year 2”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Morphologic Outcomes from OCT
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 552Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“36% sub-retinal pigment epithelium”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 555Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the 5-year visit, 50% of study eyes had VA 20/40 or better”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Visual acuity measurements obtained from outside ophthalmologists are comparable to those obtained at CATT centers.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most recent treatment in the study eye before the Follow-up Study visit was within 3 months for 360 (55.6%) patients.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Care and Treatment after Release from the Clinical Trial Protocol
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline ocular characteristics were similar among these 3 groups of patients.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the 1117 patients alive at the end of the clinical trial (end of Year 2), 203 (18.2%) died before the end of the Follow-up Study.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 1,117Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most (591 [91.3%]) of the 647 Follow-up Study patients continued care at a CATT center after release from the clinical trial”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Care and Treatment after Release from the Clinical Trial Protocol
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 647Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fundus photographs were available for 527 (81.4%) of the Follow-up Study patients and fluorescein angiograms were available for 467 (72.2%; Table 3).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Morphologic Outcomes from Fundus Photography and Angiography
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“VA was obtained for 647 (71%) of 914 living patients with average follow-up time 5.5 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 914Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and was subfoveal in 85 (17%).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 515Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of examinations for AMD care after the clinical trial ended was 25.3”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and a mean baseline visual acuity score 3.1 letters worse than participants (p=0.001).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Retinal thickness was greater than 212 μm in 62 (11.2%) eyes, similar to the percentage (14%) at 2 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Morphologic Outcomes from OCT
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-participants had a mean age 2.3 years older (p<0.001)”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in VA or morphological outcomes between drug or regimen groups.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean area of the total neovascular lesion was 2 mm2 greater in eyes assigned to ranibizumab in the clinical trial than in eyes assigned to bevacizumab (13.9 vs 11.9 mm2); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.06).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Morphologic Outcomes from Fundus Photography and Angiography
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spectral domain OCT scans were available for 555 (85.8%) of the Follow-up Study patients”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Morphologic Outcomes from OCT
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and had worse mean visual acuity both at baseline (−4.1 letters)”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patients who died after 2 years were on average 5.6 years older than participants”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportion of eyes with fluid decreased the most during the first year of treatment, but remained relatively unchanged throughout the remaining 4 years of follow up.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CATT Follow-up Study finding of 50% of patients with VA of 20/40 or better at 5 years and nearly 10% with VA 20/20 or better”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“Still, 50% of patients were 20/40 or better and almost 10% were 20/20.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was still a higher proportion (44%) of eyes originally assigned to ranibizumab with geographic atrophy than eyes assigned to bevacizumab (38%), and a higher proportion (47%) of eyes assigned to monthly treatment for 2 years with geographic atrophy than eyes assigned to PRN treatment (40%). However, these differences were not statistically significant.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After release from the clinical trial at 2 years, very few patients continued monthly treatment and most were treated with at least 1 additional anti-VEGF drug that was different from their original treatment assignment.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the 3.5 year period after release from the CATT protocol, patients received 4 to 5 injections per year on average and the mean visual acuity decreased an additional 11 letters to 59 letters (20/63).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We also previously reported that the proportion of eyes with geographic atrophy was 20% at 2 years and this proportion increased to 41% at 5 years, with an increase in subfoveal geographic atrophy from 6% to 17%.7,37”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] 2012, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Sharma, 2016, Macular morphology and visual acuity in the second year of the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the end of 2 years of treatment in the clinical trial, mean VA was 70 letters (20/40) and there was no statistically significant difference in mean visual acuity between eyes originally assigned to ranibizumab and eyes originally assigned to bevacizumab.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Comparison of participants to non-participants in this cohort showed that visual acuity and lesion characteristics were better for participants”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Singer, 2012, HORIZON: an open-label extension trial of ranibizumab for choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This decrease in vision was accompanied by expansion of the size of the total neovascular complex composed of neovascularization, scarring, and atrophy and by persistence of fluid on OCT.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because very few patients remained on their originally assigned drug or dosing schedule between the end of year 2 and follow-up at approximately 5 years, the CATT Follow-up study results provide information primarily on overall treatment outcomes with anti-VEGF drugs and limited information on effects of different drugs and dosing regimens.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the Australian retrospective review, the mean number of injections over 5 years was 25 with mean visual acuity decreasing to 20/63.20”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Gillies, 2015, Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, the mean number of injections was 11 over 5 years in the Pan-American Study and the mean visual acuity at 5 years was 20/250.18”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Arevalo, 2016, Intravitreal bevacizumab for choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: 5-year results of the Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study Group (PACORES), Retina source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Visual acuity decreased to 20/200 or worse at 2 years in 45% to 75% of patients with no treatment and in 30% to 40% with photodynamic therapy”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] 1993, Laser photocoagulation of subfoveal neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: updated findings from two clinical trials, Arch Ophthalmol source
- Not checked yetcites [32] 2001, Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: two-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials. TAP report #2, Arch Ophthalmol
- Not checked yetcites [33] 2001, Am J Ophthalmol source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On a cross-sectional basis, the presence of intraretinal fluid is associated with worse visual acuity during anti-VEGF treatment while the presence of subretinal fluid is associated with better visual acuity.36–38”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Jaffe, 2013, Macular morphology and visual acuity in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT), Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Sharma, 2016, Macular morphology and visual acuity in the second year of the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [38] Schmidt-Erfurth, 2015, Pigment epithelial detachment followed by retinal cystoid degeneration leads to vision loss in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two years after diagnosis, fewer than 10% of patients retained vision of 20/40 or better with no treatment and fewer than 15% of patients treated with photodynamic therapy retained 20/40 or better.31–33”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] 1993, Laser photocoagulation of subfoveal neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: updated findings from two clinical trials, Arch Ophthalmol source
- Not checked yetcites [32] 2001, Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: two-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials. TAP report #2, Arch Ophthalmol
- Not checked yetcites [33] 2001, Am J Ophthalmol source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“where the majority of patients do not require treatment beyond 3 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Elman, 2015, Intravitreal ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: 5-year randomized trial results, Ophthalmology source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol I clinical trial, a mean of 8 or 9 injections were given in Year 1, decreasing to 2 or 3 in Year 2, to 1 or 2 in Year 3, and to 0 or 1 in Year 4, depending on treatment assignment.35”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Elman, 2015, Intravitreal ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: 5-year randomized trial results, Ophthalmology source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The processes responsible for the decrease in vision in CATT and other studies are multiple but appear to be related to an increase in the proportion patients with an abnormally thin retina (<120 microns), an increase in prevalence of geographic atrophy, and a substantial increase in lesion size.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Worse visual acuity outcomes are associated with increased lesion size.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In CATT and all randomized clinical trials of anti-VEGF treatment for neovascular AMD, most of the improvement in mean visual acuity from baseline occurred within the first 3 to 6 months with little erosion of the benefit through 2 years when a fixed schedule of monthly (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept) or bi-monthly (aflibercept) treatment was maintained.1,7,9,17,34”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Rosenfeld, 2006, Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [7] 2012, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Chakravarthy, 2013, Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [17] Schmidt-Erfurth, 2014, Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: ninety-six-week results of the VIEW studies, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [34] Brown, 2009, Ranibizumab versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results of the ANCHOR Study, Ophthalmology source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, in HORIZON, mean visual acuity declined by 7 letters to 20/80 with total 4 injections on average during the 2 years following exit from the formal clinical trials.19”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Singer, 2012, HORIZON: an open-label extension trial of ranibizumab for choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results would have been unimaginable in the era prior to the availability of anti-VEGF therapy.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“During CATT, both the use of ranibizumab and monthly treatment were associated with an increased rate of development of geographic atrophy.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] 2012, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results, Ophthalmology source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In CATT, patients who switched at 1 year from a monthly to a PRN dosing regimen received 5 to 6 injections on average and experienced a mean visual acuity decrease of 2 to 3 letters over the second year.7”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] 2012, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results, Ophthalmology source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Visual acuity measurements obtained from outside ophthalmologists are comparable to those obtained at CATT centers.
“Information on treatment, visual acuity, and imaging was requested from the outside ophthalmologists who provided AMD care for these patients.”
“Most (85.5%) of the visual acuity information was obtained by examination at a CATT clinical center by a certified examiner.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The observed 5-year visual outcomes are attributable to anti-VEGF treatment rather than to other factors or the natural history of neovascular AMD.
“However, 50% of eyes had VA 20/40 or better, confirming anti-VEGF therapy as a major long-term therapeutic advance for neovascular AMD.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Residual fluid was often minor, missed by the clinician, or accepted because vision was stable.
“it is reasonable to assume that the amount of fluid was frequently small and not detected by the ophthalmologist or was tolerated because of stable vision.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Worse visual acuity outcomes are associated with increased lesion size.
“Worse VA outcomes have also been associated with increased lesion size”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, the requirement for lifelong injections imposes a substantial burden on patients and caregivers, and many patients fail to maintain initial therapeutic benefits owing to noncompliance with the burdensome treatment regimen. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 13 – 20”
From Design and Characterization of a Novel Intravitreal Dual-Transgene Genetic Medicine for Neovascular Retinopathies (2024) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Non-participating patients were on average 2 years older, had visual acuity 5 letters worse by the end of the clinical trial, and had 2 fewer injections during the clinical trial when they had been assigned to treatment as needed.14”
From Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The percentage of participants with scar at 2 years was 44% and was 38% among non-participants (p=0.10).14”
From Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Rosenfeld, P. J., Brown, D. M., Heier, J. S., Boyer, D. S., Kaiser, P. K., Chung, C. Y., & Kim, R. Y. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa054481 · Cited by 5,886
Cillà, S. D., Farruggio, S., Vujosevic, S., Raina, G., Filippini, D. A., Gatti, V., Clemente, N., Mary, D., Vezzola, D., Casini, G., et al. (2017) · Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1159/000479441 · Cited by 5,154
Altman, R., Carreras, L., Díaz, R. S., Figueroa, E. B., Paolasso, E., Parodi, J. C., Cade, J. F., Donnan, G. A., Eadie, M. J., Gavaghan, T. P., et al. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6921.81 · Cited by 4,204
Ranibizumab versus Verteporfin for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Brown, D. M., Kaiser, P. K., Michels, M., Soubrane, G., Heier, J. S., Kim, R. Y., Sy, J. P., & Schneider, S. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa062655 · Cited by 3,522
Altman, R., Carreras, L., Díaz, R. S., Figueroa, E. B., Paolasso, E., Parodi, J. C., Cade, J. F., Donnan, G. A., Eadie, M. J., Gavaghan, T. P., et al. (1994) · Cited by 3,322
Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
(2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102673 · Cited by 2,669
Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration
Heier, J. S., Brown, D. M., Chong, V., Korobelnik, J.-F., Kaiser, P. K., Nguyen, Q. D., Kirchhof, B., Ho, A., Ogura, Y., Yancopoulos, G. D., et al. (2012) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.006 · Cited by 2,485
Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group (1999) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.117.10.1329 · Cited by 2,192
Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration
Martin, D. F., Maguire, M. G., Fine, S. L., Ying, G.-S., Jaffe, G. J., Grunwald, J. E., Toth, C., Redford, M., & Ferris, F. L. (2012) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.03.053 · Cited by 1,715
Self-citationBrown, D. M., Michels, M., Kaiser, P. K., Heier, J. S., Sy, J. P., & Ianchulev, T. (2009) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.10.018 · Cited by 1,318
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 706
High-dose Aflibercept with Increased Dosing Intervals as a New Standard of Care for DMO and nAMD
Adrean, S. D., & Retina Consultants of Orange County, F. (2023) · touchREVIEWS in Ophthalmology · doi:10.17925/usor.2023.17.1.8 · Cited by 1
Long term follow up of patients with MNV3 treated with intra-vitreal Aflibercept
Browning, A. C., Grinton, M. E., Quinn, S. A., Jain, T., Manikavasagar, V., & Aftab, A. M. (2024) · European Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1177/11206721241229912 · Cited by 1
Creer, R. C., Boonarpha, N., Gould, G. E., Rajai, A., & Chhabra, R. (2024) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-024-06429-6 · Cited by 1
Schoumacher, M., Lambert, V., Campas, M., Blaise, P., Locht, B., Thys, M., Duchateau, E., Cavalier, E., Rakic, J., Noël, A., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2024.1449226 · Cited by 1
Nawrocka, Z., Dulczewska-Cichecka, K., Zając, M., Galus, T. A., Trębińska, M., & Nawrocki, J. (2025) · Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · doi:10.1177/24741264251330334 · Cited by 1
Salabati, M., Garrigan, H., Momenaei, B., Wakabayashi, T., Wong, J.-C., Patel, D., Mahmoudzadeh, R., Mansour, H. A., Ammar, M. J., Xu, D. N., et al. (2025) · Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · doi:10.1177/24741264251371007 · Cited by 1
Essex, R. W., Nguyen, V., Daïen, V., Steinmann, S., Walton, R., Gillies, M. C., & Barthelmes, D. (2018) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-311852 · Cited by 1
Chaili, S., & Adrean, S. D. (2019) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.81466 · Cited by 1
Li, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Xu, Y., & Zhang, M. (2019) · Ophthalmic Research · doi:10.1159/000500118 · Cited by 1
Clinical Management of Myopia in Adults: Treatment of Myopic CNV
Sim, S. S., Wong, C. W., & Cheung, C. M. G. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8491-2_13 · Cited by 1
Rusakevich, A. M., Zhou, B., Wong, T. P., & Wykoff, C. C. (2019) · Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina · doi:10.3928/23258160-20190905-17 · Cited by 1
Heier, J. S. (2020) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000002830 · Cited by 1
Ruamviboonsuk, P., Chotcomwonse, P., Nganthavee, V., Pattanapongpaiboon, W., & Hemarat, K. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-2213-0_20 · Cited by 1
Falcão, M. S. (2020) · Kompass Ophthalmologie · doi:10.1159/000511380 · Cited by 1
Glück, S., Brandlhuber, U., Gerbutavicius, R., Kortüm, G. ‐., Kortüm, I., Orozco, R. N., Rakitin, M., Strodtbeck, M., & Kortuem, K. (2020) · Der Ophthalmologe · doi:10.1007/s00347-020-01267-3 · Cited by 1
Lohse, M. J., & Grehn, F. J. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-63825-5_36 · Cited by 1
Manojkumar, P. P., Ranjith, L., Karuppasamy, K., & Kanthan, K. P. (2021) · Indian Journal of Fisheries · doi:10.21077/ijf.2021.68.4.108637-02 · Cited by 1
Angermann, R., Franchi, A., Frede, K., Rettenwander, J., Rettenwander, T., Neyer, J., Stattin, M., Kralinger, M. T., & Zehetner, C. (2022) · Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde · doi:10.1055/a-1830-0505 · Cited by 1
Chong, E. W. T., & Al‐Qureshi, S. (2017) · Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1111/ceo.12968 · Cited by 1
Tyson, S. L., Bafna, S., Gira, J. P., Goldberg, D. F., Jones, J. J., Jones, M. P., Kim, J. K., Martel, J. M., Nordlund, M. L., Piovanetti-Perez, I. K., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.02.016 · Cited by 1
Kinoshita, T., Mori, J., Hatanaka, A., Akaiwa, K., Shimizu, M., & Imaizumi, H. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-200344/v1 · Cited by 1
Schütze, C., Wienerrhoither, N., Weingessel, B., & Vécsei‐Marlovits, P. V. (2017) · Spektrum der Augenheilkunde · doi:10.1007/s00717-017-0357-6
Low-level night-time light therapy for age-related macular degeneration
Robinson, D. G. (2017) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University)
Bräutigam, A., & Gerding, H. (2018) · Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde · doi:10.1055/a-0581-8617
Klinische Parameter von Patienten mit neovaskulärer altersbedingter Maculadegeneration
Wassel, S., Tsompanidi, E., Tahmaz, E., Hörster, B., & Hoerster, R. (2018) · Der Ophthalmologe · doi:10.1007/s00347-018-0730-0
Tae, K. S., Kim, J. W., Kim, C. G., Lee, D. W., & Kim, J. H. (2018) · Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society · doi:10.3341/jkos.2018.59.10.908
Treated exudative CNV: short-term and long-term real-life evolution
Lumbroso, B. D., Rispoli, M., & Savastano, M. C. (2018) · Minerva Oftalmologica · doi:10.23736/s0026-4903.18.01802-0
Education and Outreach Programs
Stimson, D. T. (2017) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315152189-6
Ophthalmology Retina Enters Year 4
SCHACHAT, A. P. (2020) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2019.11.003
TISSUE CHARACTERISTICS IN RETINAL SURFACE DISORDERS
Joseph, A. (2019)
Low-Intensity Laser Light Projection for Improved Reading Abilities in Low-Vision Patients
Barak, A., Schwartz, R., Rabina, G., Kremer, A., Loewenstein, A., & Schwartz, S. (2020) · Current Eye Research · doi:10.1080/02713683.2020.1788101
Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Macular Disorders
Ruamviboonsuk, P., Semturs, C., Raman, R., Nganthavee, V., & Chotcomwongse, P. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7644-7_7
Unsuccessful Trials That Investigated Therapies for Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Singh, S. R., Hariprasad, S. M., Khanani, A. M., & Chhablani, J. K. (2020) · Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina · doi:10.3928/23258160-20201104-01
Evaluation of the effect of Carvacrol on retinal neovascularization in rats
Kaymaz, A., & Erimşah, S. (2021) · Turkish Journal of Veterinary Research · doi:10.47748/tjvr.878271
伊吹, 麻. (2020) · Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)
Pharmacotherapy of Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Laíns, I., Kim, I. K., & Husain, D. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90495-5_112-1
Alberto-Pestano, M. M., Piñero-Cutillas, C., & González, R. A. (2021) · Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.oftale.2020.09.016
Yi, Q., Chen, L., Shen, Y., Liao, Y., Wang, Y., Yang, J., Jin, Y., & Cheng, L. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03335-3
Kick, G. R. (2021) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · doi:10.32469/10355/88127
Pharmacodynamic Evaluation: Ocular Pharmacology
Sharif, N. A. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68864-0_54
Lohse, M. J. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62168-4_35
Lohse, M. J. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-59046-1_38
Lohse, M. J. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-57386-0_38
Gaur, S., Singh, D. V., Reddy, R. R., & Sharma, A. K. (2022) · BMJ Case Reports · doi:10.1136/bcr-2021-244771
Müftüoğlu, İ. K., Alam, M. M. R., You, Q. S., Gaber, R. A., Ramkumar, H. L., Mendoza, N., Meshi, A., & Freeman, W. R. (2017) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000001814
Adrean, S. D., Chaili, S., Ramkumar, H. L., Pirouz, A., & Grant, S. (2019) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.10.006
Begaj, T., Parikh, R., & Eliott, D. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63978-5_5
Treating Retinal Diseases by Optical Coherence Tomography Alone During COVID-19 LockdownPreprint
Zhalka, F. E., atta, D. A., Segal, O., & Moisseiev, E. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2270259/v1
Lohse, M. J., Grehn, F. J., & Kuchenbecker, J. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-66303-5_29
Куранова, О. И., Guseva, E. V., & Antonuk, V. D. (2023) · The EYE GLAZ · doi:10.33791/2222-4408-2023-1-41-48
Mondéjar, J., Pellico, G., Sallén, T., Núñez, P., Puigcerver, M., & Pallás, I. G. (2023) · Journal of Healthcare Quality Research · doi:10.1016/j.jhqr.2023.02.007
Bulson, R., & Faridi, A. (2017) · PubMed
Akhlaq, A., Williams, D. F., Clark, W. L., Khan, H., Khanani, A. M., Walden, L., Awh, C. C., Graff, J. T., Graff, J. M., Wakabayashi, T., et al. (2023) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.07.003
New Avenues of Delivery (Subretinal Gene Therapy, Port Delivery, Suprachoroidal)
Nair, A. A., Chaili, S., & Law, J. C. (2023) · Current practices in ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-1661-0_19
Intravitreal treatments for exudative maculopathies: the efficacy/durability dilemma
Arrigo, A., Aragona, E., & Bandello, F. M. (2024) · Minerva Ophthalmology · doi:10.23736/s2785-1265.23.01881-5
Koirala, A., Marshak‐Rothstein, A., Ksander, B. R., & Gregory-Ksander, M. S. (2026) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2026.1898554
de Guimarães, T. A. C., & Michaelides, M. (2024) · Essentials in ophthalmology/Essentials ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-4436-1_16
Mano, F., LoBue, S., Tailor, P. D., & Olsen, T. W. (2024) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2024.08.002
Biosimilars in Retinal Diseases: A Primer
Rawat, R., Saxena, R. K., & Agarwal, M. (2024) · Delhi Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/dljo.dljo_132_23
Ho, R., Cheong, A. M. Y., Wan, A. H. Y., Lo, T. L. T., Fong, T. C. T., Chan, C. K. P., Li, Q., & Chan, W. C. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088311
He, F., Chen, Q., Gu, P., Liu, X., Chen, Y., Liu, T., & Li, C. (2025) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.100711
Shinozaki, Y., Akanuma, S., Tega, Y., & Hosoya, K. (2025) · Journal of Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jphs.2025.02.002
Souied, E. H., Amoroso, F., Baillif, S., Devin, F., Weber, M., Colantuono, D., Blanco-Garavito, R., & Mière, A. (2025) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000004444
Stanescu, N., Khalifa, K., Arnon, R., Rabina, G., Nemet, A. Y., Arbel, I., Geffen, N., & Segal, O. (2025) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-025-03792-4
Starr, M. R., LOVETT, E. A., Israilevich, R. N., Hsu, J., Hua, P., Huang, J., Maguire, M. G., Martin, D. F., Ying, G., & Kuriyan, A. E. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2025.05.016
Self-citationJapiassú, R. M., Cialdini, A. P., Hilgert, C. R., & Bach, B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29358-0_90-1
Inhibition of RORγt suppresses both retinal and choroidal neovascularization in mice
Cai, Y., Jiang, S., Sun, Y., Nyambayar, N., Lin, R., Zhu, Y., Chen, X., & Xie, B. (2025) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2025.110573
Fármacos utilizados para DMAE neovascular Bevacizumab
Cortalezzi, J. M. (2021) · Oftalmología clínica y experimental. · doi:10.70313/2718.7446.v11.n1.103
Efdamrofusp alfa: an insight into the novel drug and its use in age-related macular degeneration
Rath, S., Ibrahim, A., Singh, A., Das, A., Sediqi, S. M., Khan, N. A., Panchal, K., & Mian, S. M. (2025) · International Journal of Retina and Vitreous · doi:10.1186/s40942-025-00685-2
Hejsek, L., Hrevuš, M., Burova, M., Beran, D., Cyžová, Z., Penčák, M., Pařilová, T., Liláková, D., & Veith, M. (2025) · Clinical ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s543921
Entezari, Z., Mahootchi, M., Eskandari, M., & Ahmadieh, H. (2025) · International Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s10792-025-03806-w
Adrean, S. D., Hill, L., & Amador-Patarroyo, J. (2025) · Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · doi:10.1177/24741264251389993
Gelişken, F., Koçak, N., Wenzel, C. J., Dinçer, K. A., & Wénzel, D. (2025) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-025-04057-w
Cessation of Anti‐ VEGF Treatment Therapy in Age‐Related Macular Degeneration: A Narrative Review
Usmani, E., Bahrami, B., Ebneter, A., & Chan, W. O. (2025) · Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1111/ceo.70034
Additional file 1 of Evaluation of a self-imaging SD-OCT system designed for remote home monitoring
Kim, J. E., Tomkins‐Netzer, O., Elman, M. J., Lally, D. R., Goldstein, M., Goldenberg, D., Shulman, S., Benyamini, G., & Loewenstein, A. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20056201
Additional file 2 of Evaluation of a self-imaging SD-OCT system designed for remote home monitoring
Kim, J. E., Tomkins‐Netzer, O., Elman, M. J., Lally, D. R., Goldstein, M., Goldenberg, D., Shulman, S., Benyamini, G., & Loewenstein, A. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20056204
Deng, W., Yi, C., Pan, W., Liu, J., Qi, J., Chen, J., Zhou, Z., Duan, Y., Ning, X., Li, J., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26642620
Pappas, C. M., Zouache, M. A., Matthews, S., Faust, C. D., Hageman, J. L., Williams, B. L., Richards, B. T., & Hageman, G. S. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16681651
Yusef, Y., Avetisov, K. S., Khalatyan, A. S., Shishparenok, A. N., Blinova, V. G., Gladilina, Y. A., & Zhdanov, D. D. (2025) · Russian Annals of Ophthalmology · doi:10.17116/oftalma202514106152
Application of ADCs to Therapeutic Areas Outside of Oncology
Papinska, A. M., Tamhane, M., & Shah, M. (2026) · AAPS advances in the pharmaceutical sciences series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89319-3_2
Gene therapy in ophthalmology: new prospects
Kharisova, C. B., Kitaeva, K. V., Solovyeva, V. V., Фаисович, А. Р., & Rizvanov, A. A. (2026) · Kazan medical journal · doi:10.17816/kmj677044
Jacob, M., Stattin, M., Graf, A. C., Ebner, A., Ahmed-Balestra, D., Krepler, K., & Ansari‐Shahrezaei, S. (2026) · European Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1177/11206721261424054
Amoroso, F., Mière, A., Kodjikian, L., Couturier, A., Jean-François, K., Jung, C., Wang, X., Blanco-Garavito, R., & Souied, E. H. (2026) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000004815
Ge, P., Wang, J., Gu, Q., Xu, J., Gao, Y., Li, H., Deng, J., Xie, H., Lu, Y., Lin, Y., et al. (2026) · Materials & Design · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2026.115878
Bevacizumab-polymer conjugate for enhanced stability and anti-angiogenic activity
Cho, S., Roh, J., Jeong, H., Park, Y. J., & Na, K. (2026) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2026.176107
Armendariz, B. G., & Kent, D. (2026) · Molecular vision · doi:10.63500/mv_v32_22
Rajapakse, D., Fan, J., Daily, D., Dong, L., Peterson, K. M., Fariss, R. N., & Wistow, G. J. (2026) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2026.111068
García‐Otero, X., Cuartero‐Martínez, A., Fernández‐Robredo, P., Antas, S. G.-D., Gómez‐Lado, N., Otero-Espinar, F. J., Hernández, M., Bezunartea, J., García‐Layana, A., Recalde, S., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Pharmaceutics X · doi:10.1016/j.ijpx.2026.100567
Fukuda, Y., Shiose, S., Notomi, S., Maehara, Y., Yuge, K., Kiyohara, K., Yasaka, Y., Mori, K., Fujiwara, K., Kano, K., et al. (2026) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-026-04567-1
Tseng, C.-H., Lin, M., Chiou, D.-I., Hsu, C., & Wu, C. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15114051
Guo, H., Yan, R., Han, X., & Yu, W. (2026) · Journal of Inflammation Research · doi:10.2147/jir.s612984
Mishra, C. (2025) · Odisha Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/odjo.odjo_6_26
Mares, V., Sacu, S., Frank‐Publig, S., Eidenberger, A., Fuchs, P., Coulibaly, L. M., Baratsits, M., Faustmann, G., Gumpinger, M., Sükei, E., et al. (2026) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2026.101281
Berkowitz, S. T., Gilbert, J. B., Ross, C. J., Kearney, W. F., Lorch, A. C., Miller, J. W., Rossin, E. J., Sternberg, P., & Finn, A. P. (2026) · Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · doi:10.1177/24741264261455206
Sukumaran, D., Benjamin, D., Karim, M. N. A., Amankwah, R., Maharajan, P., Mubashar, M., Sarmad, A., Sharma, P., & Dhar‐Munshi, S. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.111161
Possible involvement of the mesenchymal cell marker Meflin in regeneration after retinal injury
Okuda, D., Mii, S., Miyai, Y., Kato, K., Ando, R., Shiraki, Y., Esaki, N., Yamada, K., Shimizu, H., Ushida, H., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-58893-1
Zhao, X., & Yang, Y. (2026) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-026-04988-2 · Cited by 1
Ceran, T. H., Jabbarova, G., Yokus, R., Akdoğan, M., & Doğan, M. (2026) · European Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1177/11206721261471209
Hashiya, N., Maruko, I., Tanaka, K., Honjo, J., Miyara, Y., Watanabe, Y., Maruko, R., Nakai, A., Wakatsuki, Y., Itagaki, K., et al. (2026) · Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s10384-026-01401-9
Metadata
- Authors
- Maguire, M. G., Martin, D. F., Ying, G.-S., Jaffe, G. J., Daniel, E., Grunwald, J. E., Toth, C. A., Ferris, F. L., & Fine, S. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Duke University (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- Corresponding author
- Maguire, Maureen G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1751-1761
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4958614
- OpenAlex
- W2343042175
- Semantic Scholar
- 1942346571be9df28fbc5ab3a269cdee1dd46caa
- Cited by
- 708
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 13
- FWCI
- 74.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Eye Institute (U10EY017825, U10EY017826, U10EY017823, U10EY023530, U10EY017828)
- 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
- neovascular age-related macular degeneration, anti-VEGF therapy, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, long-term visual outcomes, visual acuity, geographic atrophy, retinal thickness, subretinal fluid, retinal pigment epithelium, dosing regimen
- MeSH terms
- Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Fluorescein Angiography, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Retina, Visual Acuity, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Geographic Atrophy, Wet Macular Degeneration, Intravitreal Injections, Subretinal Fluid
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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