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
62 Own result · 27 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 3 Own method · 2 No basis given
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plainn = 914- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plainn = 647- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plainn = 552- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
plainn = 914- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plainn = 1,117- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plainn = 647- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 μm from 2 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“a decrease of 182 μm from baseline”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among the 328 patients assigned to ranibizumab, 46 (14.0%) had no treatments, 64 (19.5%) had treatments with only ranibizumab, and 218 (66.5%) had at least 1 other type of treatment (Table 2).”
§ 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
plainn = 328- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among 555 patients originally assigned to ranibizumab, 42 (7.6%) had an arteriothrombotic event compared with 24 (4.5%) of patients originally assigned to bevacizumab (p=0.04).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Safety Data
plainn = 555 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Mean visual acuity was similar among eyes assigned to ranibizumab (57.7 letters) and eyes assigned to bevacizumab (60.2 letters; p=0.19) throughout the first 2 years in the clinical trial.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Visual Acuity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“−11 letters from 2 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 914- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
“Mean change in VA was −3 letters from baseline”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 914- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
“61% intraretinal”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among the 319 patients assigned bevacizumab, 50 (15.7%) had no treatments, 99 (31.0%) had treatments with only bevacizumab, and 170 (53.3%) had at least 1 other type of treatment.”
§ 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
plainn = 319- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Most (60%) patients were treated ≥1 times with a drug other than their randomly assigned drug.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 the mean number of treatments in the study eye was 15.4.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“38% subretinal”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 were 96 (14.8%) patients who had no treatments between the end of the clinical trial and the Follow-up Study visit”
§ 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
plainn = 96- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“An abnormally thin retina at the foveal center (<120 μm) was present in 36%.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Mean foveal total thickness was 278 μm”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Fibrotic scar was present in the foveal center in 93 (19.6%) of eyes”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Geographic atrophy was present in 213 (41%) of 515 gradable eyes”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 515- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 percentage with intraretinal fluid (61.0%) was greater than at Year 2 (50%).”
§ 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
plainn = 552- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“a mean of 4.8 mm2 larger than at 2 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 467- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 2 years, non-participants had a mean visual acuity 5.4 letters worse (p<0.001) than participants.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Fluorescein leakage was detected in 111 (24.5%) eyes.”
§ 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among 555 eyes with spectral domain optical coherence tomography, 83% had fluid”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 555- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 non-fibrotic scar in an additional 26 (5.5%) among 474 gradable eyes.”
§ 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
plainn = 474- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 2 years (−7.9 letters).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among patients assigned treatment PRN for 2 years, non-participants had a mean 1.8 fewer injections (p=0.01).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Patients
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 the type of serious medical events between drug or dosing regimen groups”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > RESULTS > Safety Data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Among 467 eyes with fluorescein angiography, mean total lesion area was 12.9 mm2”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Results
plainn = 467- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“More than 70% of eyes demonstrated intraretinal, subretinal, or sub-RPE fluid as determined by the OCT Reading Center throughout the study (Figure 5).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Residual fluid was often minor, missed by the clinician, or accepted because vision was stable.
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, we did not identify any statistically significant differences between groups based on the initially assigned drugs with respect to death or serious medical events.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“in the Follow-up Study, mean lesion size increased more than 50% over the 3.5 year period (Table 3).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Over the next 3.5 years of follow-up, patients originally assigned to ranibizumab lost more vision (−13 letters) than those originally assigned to bevacizumab (−9 letters; p=0.008; Figure 2A).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The proportion of eyes with an abnormally thin retina increased from 22% at the end of Year 2 to 36% at 5 years.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 [37] Sharma, 2016, Macular morphology and visual acuity in the second year of the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 were no obvious differences in visual acuity outcomes at 5 years between patients who were treated monthly for 2 years versus those treated PRN for 2 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 period between the end of the clinical trial and the Follow-up Study visit, more patients originally assigned to ranibizumab had arteriothrombotic events than patients assigned to bevacizumab (7.6% versus 4.5%; p=0.04).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“compared to 20% at 5 years in the CATT Follow-up Study.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Mean visual acuity at 5 years was 3 letters worse than baseline”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 magnitude of the overestimation is related to the degree of selection of patients for study and the percentage of patients lost to follow-up.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Similarly, the long-term outcomes of patients treated with anti-VEGF drugs reported from other studies (discussed below) are likely better than if all patients originally identified had been observed.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“only 388 (65%) of these selected 600 participants had 4-year follow-up.”
§ 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
plainn = 600- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Thus, the Follow-up Study results are likely better than would have been observed if 100% of CATT patients had returned.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In addition, some of the Follow-up Study participants did not have an OCT scan (14%), color photographs (19%), or a fluorescein angiogram (28%), eroding the generalizability of the Follow-up Study results on morphological outcomes.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“participants were eligible for the HORIZON study only if their ophthalmologist believed that further treatment with ranibizumab beyond the 2-year clinical trial period would be beneficial.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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several large-scale retrospective or registry studies have reported 4- and 5-year outcomes”
§ 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
- Not checked yetcites [20] Gillies, 2015, Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Peden, 2015, Long-term outcomes in eyes receiving fixed-interval dosing of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for wet age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Rasmussen, 2013, A 4-year longitudinal study of 555 patients treated with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Rofagha, 2013, Seven-year outcomes in ranibizumab-treated patients in ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON. A multicenter cohort study (SEVEN-UP), Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Zhu, 2015, Intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical practice: five-year treatment outcomes, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“patients who stop returning for care often do so soon after losing vision”
§ 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
- Not checked yetcites [20] Gillies, 2015, Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Peden, 2015, Long-term outcomes in eyes receiving fixed-interval dosing of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for wet age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Rasmussen, 2013, A 4-year longitudinal study of 555 patients treated with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Rofagha, 2013, Seven-year outcomes in ranibizumab-treated patients in ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON. A multicenter cohort study (SEVEN-UP), Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Zhu, 2015, Intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical practice: five-year treatment outcomes, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Study eyes received an average of 15.4 injections after release from the clinical trial protocol and most received regular care by their CATT ophthalmologist, even if not receiving frequent treatment.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Vision gains during the first 2 years of the trial were not maintained at 5 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“However, 50% of eyes had VA 20/40 or better, confirming anti-VEGF therapy as a major long-term therapeutic advance for neovascular AMD.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > Abstract > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The observed 5-year visual outcomes are attributable to anti-VEGF treatment rather than to other factors or the natural history of neovascular AMD.
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
“However, during the 2 years of the clinical trial, the proportion of patient with these events was nearly equal with 4.7% of ranibizumab-treated patients and 5.0% of bevacizumab-treated patients having an event (p=0.62).”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the HARBOR trial, eyes that received monthly ranibizumab had a higher incidence of geographic atrophy when compared with PRN treatment (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0–1.7).29”
§ 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 [29] Chen, 2009, Adverse effects of anticancer agents that target the VEGF pathway, Nat Rev Clin Oncol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Overall concerns about the relative safety of bevacizumab and ranibizumab when treating patients with neovascular AMD have largely been assuaged by the results of 2 Cochrane comprehensive meta-analyses clinical trials comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab.15,40”
§ 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 [15] Solomon, 2016, Intravitreal bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: findings from a Cochrane Systematic Review, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [40] Moja, 2014, Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 association of monthly treatment with an increased rate of development of geographic atrophy was more consistent.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We previously reported that retinal thinning to <120 microns was associated with worse VA outcomes at 1 and 2 years.36,37”
§ 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 [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the IVAN study, 34% of eyes that received continuous (monthly) treatment developed geographic atrophy as compared with 26% in the discontinuous (PRN) group (p=0.03).9”
§ 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 [9] Chakravarthy, 2013, Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Thus, more frequent treatment, both in the initial 2 years and in later years appears associated with better long-term outcomes”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Although few patients remained on their originally assigned drug and dosing regimen beyond the 2-year period of the clinical trial, our study does allow assessment as to whether or not the drugs and dosing regimens used during the first 2 years led to any detectable outcome differences at 5 years.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“so that patients with better vision are over-represented in these studies.”
§ 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
- Not checked yetcites [20] Gillies, 2015, Long-term outcomes of treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Peden, 2015, Long-term outcomes in eyes receiving fixed-interval dosing of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for wet age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Rasmussen, 2013, A 4-year longitudinal study of 555 patients treated with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Rofagha, 2013, Seven-year outcomes in ranibizumab-treated patients in ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON. A multicenter cohort study (SEVEN-UP), Ophthalmology source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Zhu, 2015, Intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in clinical practice: five-year treatment outcomes, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In summary, the CATT Follow-up Study provides the most complete follow up reported to date on the long-term outcomes for the treatment of neovascular AMD with anti-VEGF drugs.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“decreasing the likelihood of a true effect of ranibizumab on 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 [9] Chakravarthy, 2013, Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Because of the absence of any difference when the history of drug exposure was certain we do not believe that the difference in events observed when a large portion of patients were not receiving ranibizumab are meaningful.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“and many patients require treatment through 5 years and beyond.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“it is clear that 2 years of initial therapy with bevacizumab and the accompanying lesser degree of reduction in fluid and retinal thickness did not compromise long-term visual acuity outcomes relative to ranibizumab, as some had speculated.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At the end of Year 2, eyes treated with ranibizumab had a higher incidence (21%) of geographic atrophy than eyes treated with bevacizumab (17%; p=0.02).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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At the end of Year 2 of CATT, eyes that received monthly treatment were more likely to have developed geographic atrophy than those treated with PRN therapy (24% vs 15%, p=0.003).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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, in the IVAN study, the incidence was similar in eyes treated with ranibizumab (28%) and with bevacizumab (31%; p=0.46)”
§ 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 [9] Chakravarthy, 2013, Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“With most patients changing drugs over time, the ability to identify differential safety effects of the 2 drugs is compromised.”
§ 5-Year Outcomes with Anti-VEGF Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD): The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plainn = 914- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plainn = 515- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelationaln = 600- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development
Apte, R. S., Chen, D. S., & Ferrara, N. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.021 · Cited by 2,721
Age-related macular degeneration
Mitchell, P., Liew, G., Gopinath, B., & Wong, T. Y. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31550-2 · Cited by 1,511
Age-related macular degeneration
Fleckenstein, M., Keenan, T. D. L., Guymer, R. H., Chakravarthy, U., Schmitz-Valckenberg, S., Klaver, C. C. W., Wong, W. T., & Chew, E. Y. (2021) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00265-2 · Cited by 1,093
Fully Automated Detection and Quantification of Macular Fluid in OCT Using Deep Learning
Schlegl, T., Waldstein, S. M., Bogunović, H., Endstraßer, F., Sadeghipour, A., Philip, A.-M., Podkowinski, D., Gerendas, B. S., Langs, G., & Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M. (2017) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.10.031 · Cited by 601
Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Thomas, C. J., Mirza, R. G., & Gill, M. K. (2021) · Medical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2021.01.003 · Cited by 490
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
