The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 23 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To describe risk factors for scar formation and changes to fibrotic scar through 5 years in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT). Design Multicenter, prospective cohort study. Participants A total of 1061 subjects in CATT. Methods Color photographic and fluorescein angiographic images from baseline and 1, 2, and 5 years were evaluated. Incidence of scar formation was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk factors were assessed with Cox regression models. Main outcome measures Scar formation, fibrotic scar area, and macular atrophy associated with fibrotic scar ("atrophy"). Results Cumulative proportion of eyes with scar was 32%, 46%, and 56% at years 1, 2, and 5, respectively. Baseline factors associated with increased risk (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] and 95% confidence interval [CI]) were classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) (aHR, 4.49; 95% CI, 3.34-6.04) versus occult, hemorrhage >1 disc area (DA) (aHR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.49-3.47) versus no hemorrhage, retinal thickness >212 μm (aHR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.69-3.94) versus <120 μm, subretinal tissue complex thickness >275 μm (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.81-3.84) versus ≤75 μm, subretinal fluid thickness >25 μm (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.97-1.75) versus no fluid, visual acuity (VA) in fellow eye 20/20 (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.36) versus 20/50 or worse, retinal pigment epithelium elevation absence (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.21-2.41), and subretinal hyperreflective material (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.36). Among 68 eyes that developed fibrotic scar at year 1, VA decreased by a mean of additional 13 letters between years 1 and 5. Mean scar area was 1.2, 1.2, and 1.9 DA at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Atrophy was present in 18%, 24%, and 54% of these eyes at years 1, 2, and 5, respectively; the mean areas were 1.6, 2.0, and 3.1 DA, respectively. Atrophy replaced fibrotic scar in 8 eyes at year 5. There was no significant correlation between scar growth and atrophy growth. The rate of growth for both was similar between the clinical trial and observation periods. Conclusions Several morphologic features, including classic CNV and large hemorrhage, are associated with scar formation. Rate of new scar formation declined after 2 years. Most fibrotic scars and accompanying macular atrophy expanded over time, reducing VA.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 Own result · 9 Own method · 9 No basis given · 8 Partly supported · 8 Own interpretation · 7 Supported · 3 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Supported so far · 1 No full text of the sources · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We had shown earlier that during the first two years of treatment of nAMD with anti-VEGF drugs, the risk factors present at baseline for developing a scar included predominantly classic type of CNV, blocked fluorescence, thicker retina, larger foveal subretinal tissue complex thickness, foveal subretinal fluid and subretinal hyperreflective material.16”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [16] Daniel, 2014, Risk of scar in the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials, Ophthalmology source
The Results section identifies each listed baseline feature as a predictor of scarring in the multivariate final model, including predominantly classic CNV, blocked fluorescence, greater retinal and subretinal tissue complex thickness, foveal subretinal fluid, and subretinal hyperreflective material. The Results also specify that scar development was assessed after two years of anti-VEGF therapy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Scar and atrophy are the two most important morphological features that influence visual outcomes in untreated nAMD as well as in patients treated with anti-VEGF intravitreal injections.6,7”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Cohen, 2012, Causes of unsuccessful ranibizumab treatment in exudative age-related macular degeneration in clinical settings, Retina source
- Partly supportedcites [7] Hogg, 2003, Identification of lesion components that influence visual function in age related macular degeneration, Br J Ophthalmol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that fibrosis (scarring) and atrophy strongly influenced visual function, more than blood or exudate. But Subjects and Methods says the measurements were taken at baseline, when none of the patients had received interventional therapy to the presenting eye. This paper therefore does not support the claim about patients treated with anti-VEGF injections. (LLM, conf=0.90)
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.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“We have previously reported that both macular atrophy and foveal scar are the two foremost morphological outcomes associated with poor visual acuity in CATT.9”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] Sharma, 2016, Macular morphology and visual acuity in the second year of the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT), Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies foveal scar and foveal geographic atrophy among the features associated with the largest decreases in visual acuity in CATT. It also names several other features in that group, so it does not establish atrophy and scar as the two foremost outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Other major anti-VEGF clinical trials excluded such patients.18,19,20”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [18] Gragoudas, 2004, Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Study Design section says lesions containing blood were permitted up to a total size of 12 optic-disk areas, but it gives no limit on hemorrhage as a proportion of the lesion. Searches for hemorrhage, blood, and an exclusion threshold did not find a passage establishing that patients whose hemorrhage exceeded half the lesion were excluded. (LLM, conf=0.73)
- Supportedcites [19] Rosenfeld, 2006, Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med source
The Study Design section requires neovascularization to compose at least 50% of the entire lesion. That eligibility rule supports the claim for this trial: hemorrhage could not occupy more than half of the lesion. The paper does not establish the criteria of the other trials cited alongside it. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Brown, 2006, Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med 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.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The visual acuity in these eyes at the end of the 2-year clinical trial was similar to the eyes that did not have such large hemorrhages at enrollment.21”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [21] Altaweel, 2015, Outcomes of eyes with lesions composed of >50% blood in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT), Ophthalmology source
The Results (Outcomes during follow-up; page not available) explicitly state that mean visual acuity was similar at two years in the group whose lesions were more than 50% blood at enrollment and the other eyes. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Scars thicker than 0.2 mm have been associated with large scale loss of the photoreceptors overlying the scar tissue.8, 9”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Green, 1993, Age-related macular degeneration histopathologic studies. The 1992 Lorenz E. Zimmerman Lecture, Ophthalmology source
- Could not verifycites [9] Sharma, 2016, Macular morphology and visual acuity in the second year of the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT), Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections on OCT thickness and fundus features report that thicker subretinal tissue complexes and foveal scars were associated with worse visual acuity. They do not report a 0.2 mm scar-thickness threshold or loss of photoreceptors overlying a scar; searches for those terms found no such passage in our copy. Page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further the measurements of atrophy in more than half of these commenced only after two years”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] Sarks, 2006, Development of atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium around disciform scars, Br J Ophthalmol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Rate of expansion section reports that 9 of 20 eyes had a follow-up review within two years of atrophy onset, leaving 11 without a review in that interval. But it describes those visits as follow-up after atrophy began to be measured, not as the start of measurement. The claim therefore confuses follow-up timing with when measurements commenced. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plainn = 20- 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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and is consistent with a shift in biologic activities observed during continued passage of RPE cells in vitro.44”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [44] Miura, 2017, Evaluation of intraretinal migration of retinal pigment epithelial cells in age-related macular degeneration using polarimetric imaging, Sci Rep sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) describes intraretinal RPE migration as a reported precursor of chorioretinal atrophy and discusses changes in RPE cells during AMD. It does not connect atrophy progression to changes in biological activity observed during continued passage of RPE cells in vitro. (LLM, conf=0.78)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Reports on macular atrophy as a result of nAMD have not distinguished atrophy associated with fibrotic scar from macular atrophy without any pre-existing fibrosis.5,10, 33-35”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 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
- Could not verifycites [10] Tanaka, 2015, Vision-threatening lesions developing with longer-term follow-up after treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods and Discussion (page unavailable) distinguish atrophy by its location relative to the CNV lesion and note that atrophic scars can mimic geographic atrophy. Neither those passages nor the searched passages on prior reports and fibrotic scars say that published reports failed to separate scar-associated atrophy from atrophy without pre-existing fibrosis. (LLM, conf=0.70)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Bhisitkul, 2015, Macular atrophy progression and 7-year vision outcomes in subjects from the ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON studies: the SEVEN-UP study, Am J Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Munk, 2016, Macular atrophy in patients with long-term anti-VEGF treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Acta Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Kachi, 2016, Combination therapy with intravitreal tissue plasminogen activator and ranibizumab for subfoveal type 2 choroidal neovascularization, Jpn 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.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This trans-differentiation of retinal pigment epithelial cells from epithelial to mesenchymal phenotype can cause the RPE cells to adhere to and exert traction forces on the extracellular matrix and could be one of the factors contributing to the evolution of atrophy clinically.41-43”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [41] Zanzottera, 2015, The Project MACULA retinal pigment epithelium grading system for histology and optical coherence tomography in age-related macular degeneration, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) proposes that some RPE cells transdifferentiate, acquire new behaviors, and may contribute to loss of the pigmented cell layer in atrophy. It does not identify a mesenchymal phenotype or say that these cells adhere to and exert traction on the extracellular matrix, nor does it establish that mechanism as a contributor to clinical atrophy progression. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [42] Zanzottera, 2015, Subducted and melanotic cells in advanced age-related macular degeneration are derived from retinal pigment epithelium, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section ‘Does RPE Undergo Transdifferentiation in AMD?’ discusses epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition as a possible RPE process and notes contractile behavior in cultured RPE, while emphasizing that whether this transition occurs in AMD remains unresolved. The Conclusions mention prognostic significance for one RPE-cell pattern in atrophy progression. Neither section says that RPE cells adhere to and exert traction on the extracellular matrix or that such forces contribute to clinical atrophy progression. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] Grisanti, 1995, Transdifferentiation of retinal pigment epithelial cells from epithelial to mesenchymal phenotype, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
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.
- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Director of Grading (CAT) and the Reading Center Director (GJJ) remained masked to subject identifiers and made final decisions on reader disagreements that remained controversial after arbitration.17”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Assessment of Images
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [17] DeCroos, 2012, Optical coherence tomography grading reproducibility during the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Materials and Methods section (Team Based Grading; page unavailable) says that findings still controversial after arbitration were forwarded to the Director of Grading for a final decision. It does not say that the Reading Center Director also made those decisions or that either director remained masked to subject identifiers; its masking statement concerns the initial readers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“While long-term follow up of geographic atrophy after anti-VEGF therapy, more recently referred to as macular atrophy, has been described, long term follow-up of scars after the initiation of anti-VEGF therapy has not received much attention.10,11”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] Tanaka, 2015, Vision-threatening lesions developing with longer-term follow-up after treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports geographic atrophy during at least 3.5 years of follow-up after anti-VEGF initiation and says that little information was available on sight-threatening conditions beyond 3.5 years. It does not specifically assess how much attention long-term scar follow-up had received; it reports five cases of atrophic disciform scars but does not establish the claim about the literature on scars. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [11] Grunwald, 2017, Incidence and growth of geographic atrophy during 5 years of Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Discussion describe five-year follow-up of geographic atrophy in participants treated with anti-VEGF therapy, supporting the first part of the sentence. The cited paper does not assess long-term scar follow-up or state that it has received little attention, so it does not support that part. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“large hemorrhages promote the formation of scar and fibrin meshwork contraction that can further reduce vision by involving adjacent areas of the retina.22-29”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Segall, 2016, Submacular hemorrhage in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a synthesis of the literature, Surv Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Glatt, 1982, Experimental subretinal hemorrhage in rabbits, Am J Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Toth, 1991, Fibrin directs early retinal damage after experimental subretinal hemorrhage, Arch Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Benner, 1994, Fibrinolytic-assisted removal of experimental subretinal hemorrhage within 7 days reduces outer retinal degeneration, Ophthalmology source
- Partly supportedcites [26] Bressler, 2004, Surgery for hemorrhagic choroidal neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: ophthalmic findings: SST report no. 13, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions report that residual neovascularization and associated fibrosis could remain visible after hemorrhage cleared and were associated with poor visual outcomes. They do not say that large hemorrhages cause fibrin meshwork contraction or that scarring worsens vision by extending into adjacent retinal areas. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] Grossniklaus, 2006, Clinicopathologic studies of eyes that were obtained postmortem from four patients who were enrolled in the submacular surgery trials: SST Report No. 16, Am J Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] Toth, 1992, Ultramicrosurgical removal of subretinal hemorrhage in cats, Am J Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Bhisitkul, 2008, Neuroprotective effect of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide against photoreceptor apoptosis in a rabbit model of subretinal hemorrhage, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci source
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The percentage of participants with scar at 2 years was 44% and was 38% among non-participants (p=0.10).14”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Enrollment and Follow-up of Subjects
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [14] 2016, Five-year outcomes with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: The Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results > Patients section says Table 1 compares participants and non-participants at two years, but the passages available from our copy do not give their scar rates. A search for the 44% and 38% scar figures and p=0.10 found only a different scar measurement at the five-year follow-up (Results > Morphologic Outcomes from Fundus Photography and Angiography; page not provided). (LLM, conf=0.72)
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.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the 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”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Enrollment and Follow-up of Subjects
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] 2016, Five-year outcomes with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: The Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials, Ophthalmology source
The Results > Patients passage reports that non-participants were 2.3 years older and had visual acuity 5.4 letters worse at 2 years, the end of the clinical trial. Among patients assigned as-needed (PRN) treatment for 2 years, non-participants received 1.8 fewer injections. The citing sentence rounds each figure appropriately. (LLM, conf=0.95)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) has become the standard of care based on the results of several multicenter, randomized clinical trials with generally good visual and morphological outcomes.1,2”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Sarwar, 2016, Aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Cochrane Database Syst Rev source
The Background reports substantial visual gains in several anti-VEGF clinical trials, and the Discussion says anti-VEGF agents were recommended as first-line treatment for neovascular AMD. The Results describe two randomized VIEW trials conducted across multiple sites, while the Discussion reports visual-acuity and anatomical improvements. Our copy does not provide page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [2] Solomon, 2014, Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Cochrane Database Syst Rev source
The Background describes anti-VEGF therapy as the most commonly used treatment for neovascular AMD, and the Discussion says the reviewed RCTs established a new treatment paradigm. The Results describe 12 randomized trials, including international studies; the Discussion reports benefits in visual acuity and lesion morphology. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Sarks et al. had described the expanding macular atrophy associated with fibrotic scars developing from nAMD.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] Sarks, 2006, Development of atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium around disciform scars, Br J Ophthalmol source
The paper’s introductory section identifies disciform fibrovascular scars as an end result of neovascular AMD and says they commonly become surrounded by a ring of atrophy that expands over many years. Its Results report an expanding band of RPE atrophy around the scars, matching the attributed description. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelationaln = 20- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“but the study was limited by its retrospective nature with only a small number of eyes (n=20) that had undergone treatment with laser photocoagulation, radiotherapy, intravitreal triamcinolone injections, or combinations of these.31”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] Sarks, 2006, Development of atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium around disciform scars, Br J Ophthalmol source
The Materials and Methods section (page not available) reports 20 eyes and lists laser photocoagulation, radiotherapy, intravitreal triamcinolone injections, and combinations of these. Its analysis of previously taken serial photographs supports the description of the study as retrospective. Calling the small sample a limitation is the citing authors’ assessment. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainn = 20- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They suggested that the expansion of such atrophy was faster during the earlier periods of follow up”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] Sarks, 2006, Development of atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium around disciform scars, Br J Ophthalmol source
The Rate of expansion section reports that atrophy expanded more rapidly initially, with higher annual rates in eyes reviewed within the first three and two years. The Case history section likewise says progression was most rapid in the first few years and subsequently slowed. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedcorrelationaln = 20- 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.
- Supported
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 areas being 1.6, 2.0 and 3.1 DAs, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The average size of atrophy increased from 1.6 DA at year 1 to 2.0 DA in year 2 and to 3.1 DA in year 5.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plainn = 68- 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.
- Also stated in: § Results · 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
“Pigmentation on the fibrotic scars was seen in 13% eyes at year 1, 22% at year 2 and in 53% eyes at year 5 (Figure 6).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Incidence of scar was distributed similarly between the two drug groups and among the three dosing regimen groups. (Table 1)”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Cumulative proportion of eyes with scar was 32%, 46% and 56% at year 1, 2 and 5, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative rate of scar was 32.0% at 1 year, 46.3% at 2 years and 56.4% at 5 years (Figure 3).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“Approximately one-third of the CATT eyes developed retinal scar during the first year of treatment and an additional 10% developed scar during the second year of treatment.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plainn = 1,061- 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: § Results · 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
“The mean VA (SD) of these eyes was 61 [≈ 20/63] (21) letters at 1 year, 63 [≈ 20/50] (18) letters at 2 years and 49 [≈ 20/100] (26) at year 5.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 68- 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
“Atrophy was present in 18%, 24%, and 54% of these eyes at year 1, 2 and 5”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plainn = 68- 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
“Mean scar area was 1.2, 1.2 and 1.9 DAs at 1, 2 and 5 years, respectively.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plainn = 68- 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
“Photographic images at all three follow up visits (1, 2 and 5 years) were available for 474 subjects and 68 (14.3%) developed fibrotic scar in the study eye at 1 year.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 474- 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
“but was reduced at five years.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
The quote only partly states this claim.
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 scars that developed at 1 year tended to change in size or be accompanied by atrophy and pigmentation with only 15% remaining stable throughout the follow-up period.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Among the invited patients, 203 had died by the time of Follow-up Study and among the remaining 914 living patients, 647 (71%) participated.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Enrollment and Follow-up of Subjects
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 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
“Most fibrotic scars and accompanying macular atrophy expanded over time, reducing visual acuity.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
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.
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
“Similarly OCT evaluation was performed at the Duke University reading Center where a reader team, composed of 2 independent readers and a senior reader, evaluated each scan.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Assessment of Images
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.
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
“The study was approved by the Institutional review boards associated with each center and all subjects provided written informed consent. The study was compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. The CATT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00593450).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Enrollment and Follow-up of Subjects
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.
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
“Each image set was dual-Reader graded for the various morphological outcomes by trained non-physician Readers and the CATT fundus photographic Reading Center Director (ED), all of whom were masked to demographic and clinical details.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Assessment of Images
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“Discrepancies were adjudicated between the graders and the director of the reading center and unresolved discrepancies were reviewed by the principal investigator (JEG) to complete a final consensus grading form.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Assessment of Images
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 change due to difference in scar size and VA between the two periods could be attributed to a much longer time window in the second period and the difference in the type of care given during these two periods.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“It appears as though the expanding fibrotic scar as well as atrophy contribute to the decrease in VA in CATT study eyes at 5 years even though they do not seem to substantially affect VA in year 2.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Even with optimal adherence, anti-VEGFs’ effectiveness can subside in nAMD patients, owing to underlying pathological changes occurring over time, leading to further vision loss [71, 72].”
From The economic impact of retinal diseases for which gene therapy is emerging: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
“visual acuity in fellow eye 20/20 (1.72, 95% CI 1.25, 2.36) vs 20/50 or worse”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
“Good baseline visual acuity (20/20 or above) in the fellow eye was associated with increased risk of developing scar in the study eye (aHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00, 1.74, p=0.04) compared to visual acuity of 20/50 or worse.”
Citations
Cites
Molecular mechanisms of epithelial–mesenchymal transition
Lamouille, S., Xu, J., & Derynck, R. (2014) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm3758 · Cited by 8,091
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
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
Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
(2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102673 · Cited by 2,669
Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Gragoudas, E. S., Adamis, A. P., Cunningham, E. T., Feinsod, M., & Guyer, D. R. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa042760 · Cited by 2,337
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-citationSeven-Year Outcomes in Ranibizumab-Treated Patients in ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON
Rofagha, S., Bhisitkul, R. B., Boyer, D. S., Sadda, S. R., & Zhang, K. (2013) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.03.046 · Cited by 1,023
Age-related Macular Degeneration Histopathologic Studies
Green, W. R., & Enger, C. (1993) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(93)31466-1 · Cited by 757
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. (2016) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.03.045 · Cited by 708
Self-citationAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Solomon, S. D., Lindsley, K., Vedula, S. S., Krzystolik, M. G., & Hawkins, B. S. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005139.pub3 · Cited by 520
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tenbrock, L., Wolf, J., Boneva, S., Schlecht, A., Agostini, H. T., Wieghofer, P., Schlunck, G., & Lange, C. (2021) · Cell and Tissue Research · doi:10.1007/s00441-021-03514-8 · Cited by 161
Review of Fibrosis in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Cheong, K. X., Cheung, C. M. G., & Teo, K. Y. C. (2022) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2022.09.008 · Cited by 65
Supuran, C. T. (2019) · Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents · doi:10.1080/13543776.2019.1671353 · Cited by 58
Teo, K. Y. C., Joe, A. W., Nguyen, V., Invernizzi, A., Arnold, J., Barthelmes, D., & Gillies, M. C. (2020) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000002779 · Cited by 60
“01 Baseline lesion size, median mm (Q1, Q3) 1900 (1,600, 2,965) 2,337 (1,500, 3,500) 2,400 (1,500, 3,500) 2030 (1,235, 3,425) ,0.”
Mathis, T., Holz, F. G., Sivaprasad, S., Yoon, Y. H., Eter, N., Chen, L.-J., Koh, A. C., de Souza, E. C., & Staurenghi, G. (2022) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-022-02231-y · Cited by 57
“5-fold higher risk of developing a fibrotic scar compared with type 1 lesions [39].”
BackgroundWu, L., Vasilijić, S., Sun, Y., Chen, J., Landegger, L. D., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Ren, J. P., Early, S., Yin, Z., et al. (2021) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abd4816 · Cited by 53
Romano, F., Cozzi, E., Airaldi, M., Nassisi, M., Viola, F., Aretti, A., Milella, P., Giuffrida, F. P., Teo, K. Y. C., Cheung, C. M. G., et al. (2023) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.033 · Cited by 57
Evolving treatment paradigms for PCV
Fenner, B. J., Cheung, C. M. G., Sim, S. S., Lee, W. K., Staurenghi, G., Lai, T. Y. Y., Ruamviboonsuk, P., Kokame, G. T., Yanagi, Y., & Teo, K. Y. C. (2021) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01688-7 · Cited by 57
Foss, A. J. E., Rotsos, T., Empeslidis, T., & Chong, V. N. (2021) · Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1159/000520171 · Cited by 51
15 years of anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD: success or failure or something in between?
Chakravarthy, U., Armendariz, B. G., & Fauser, S. (2022) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-022-02153-9 · Cited by 42
“Long term follow up of participants of large trials found that half of all study eyes had evidence of fibrosis 5 to 7 years after enrolment [13, 17].”
BackgroundYi, C., Liu, J., Deng, W., Luo, C., Qi, J., Chen, M., & Xu, H. (2023) · Journal of Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1186/s12974-023-02731-y · Cited by 43
Bachmeier, I., Armendariz, B. G., Yu, S., Jäger, R. J., Ebneter, A., Glittenberg, C. G., Pauleikhoff, D., Sadda, S. R., Chakravarthy, U., & Fauser, S. (2023) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.03.004 · Cited by 43
Harnessing the Neuroprotective Behaviors of Müller Glia for Retinal Repair
Peña, J. S., & Vázquez, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Bioscience-Landmark · doi:10.31083/j.fbl2706169 · Cited by 40
“The CATT reported that the incidence of retinal scarring was higher in patients undergoing antiangiogenic treatment than the scarring incidence post-treatment [25].”
BackgroundBaseline predictors for subretinal fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Roberts, P. K., Schranz, M. W., Motschi, A. R., Desissaire, S., Häcker, V., Pircher, M., Sacu, S., Buehl, W., Hitzenberger, C. K. F., & Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03716-8 · Cited by 37
Souied, E. H., Addou-Regnard, M., Ohayon, A., Semoun, O., Querques, G., Blanco-Garavito, R., Bunod, R., Jung, C., Sikorav, A., & Mière, A. (2020) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.02.016 · Cited by 34
Long-Term Outcomes of Bacillary Layer Detachment in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Ramtohul, P., Malclès, A., Gigon, E., Freund, K. B., Introini, U., Bandello, F. M., & Cicinelli, M. V. (2021) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2021.09.010 · Cited by 32
Nguyen, V., Barthelmes, D., & Gillies, M. C. (2021) · Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1111/ceo.13949 · Cited by 32
“In contrast to macular atrophy, the presence of fluid has been identified as a potential risk factor for the development of subretinal fibrosis.(58,59) This idea was again supported by FRB! data, with a higher proportion of visits with active CNV associated with a greater risk of developing subretinal fibrosis (adjust…”
BackgroundFibrosis in age-related neovascular macular degeneration in the anti-VEGF era
Armendariz, B. G., & Chakravarthy, U. (2024) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-024-03308-6 · Cited by 34
Brandli, A. A., Vessey, K. A., & Fletcher, E. L. (2024) · Journal of Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1186/s12974-024-03055-1 · Cited by 33
“However, despite the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents, approximately half of treated individuals experience significant vision loss over five to seven years [7, 8].”
BackgroundMares, V., Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M., Leingang, O., Fuchs, P., Nehemy, M. B., Bogunović, H., Barthelmes, D., & Reiter, G. S. (2023) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2022-323014 · Cited by 27
Daniel, E., Ying, G., Kim, B. J., Toth, C. A., Ferris, F. L., Martin, D. F., Grunwald, J. E., Jaffe, G. J., Dunaief, J. L., Pan, W., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.11.020 · Cited by 26
“(%) 0 (0) 73 (20) 74 (20) 43 (12) 20/25e20/40, no.”
Self-citationYang, X., Zou, R., Dai, X., Wu, X., Yuan, F., & Feng, Y. (2022) · Experimental Cell Research · doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2022.113221 · Cited by 27
Salas, A., Badia, A. C., Fontrodona, L., Zapata, M. Á., García‐Arumí, J., & Duarri, A. (2023) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines11092445 · Cited by 29
“This is because 10% of patients do not react to anti-VEGF, and 50% of those who receive long-term treatment experience considerable vision loss within 5 years, primarily due to atrophy and the onset of subretinal fibrosis [14,15].”
BackgroundToth, C. A., Tai, V., Pistilli, M., Chiu, S. J., Winter, K. P., Daniel, E., Grunwald, J. E., Jaffe, G. J., Martin, D. F., Ying, G., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2018.11.011 · Cited by 25
“001 3 (1, 7) Photoreceptor loss Eyes 25 (100) 42 (95) 4 (57) 23 (88) 0.”
Self-citationInvernizzi, A., Nguyen, V., Teo, K. Y. C., Barthelmes, D., Fung, A. T.-C., Vincent, A. L., & Gillies, M. C. (2019) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.03.001 · Cited by 24
Bo, Q., Shen, M., Xiao, M., Liang, J., Zhai, Y., Zhu, H., Jiang, M., Wang, F., Luo, X., & Sun, X. (2020) · Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/jop.2019.0112 · Cited by 23
Li, D., Yuan, D., Shen, H., Mao, X., Yuan, S., & Liu, Q. (2019) · PubMed Central · Cited by 23
Zhang, J., Sheng, X., Ding, Q., Wang, Y., Zhao, J., & Zhang, J. (2024) · Neural Regeneration Research · doi:10.4103/nrr.nrr-d-23-01642 · Cited by 23
Finn, A. P., Pistilli, M., Tai, V., Daniel, E., Ying, G., Maguire, M. G., Grunwald, J. E., Martin, D. F., Jaffe, G. J., & Toth, C. A. (2020) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.11.002 · Cited by 23
Self-citationDaniel, E., Maguire, M. G., Grunwald, J. E., Toth, C. A., Jaffe, G. J., Martin, D. F., & Ying, G. (2020) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.0437 · Cited by 22
Self-citationPhan, L. T., Broadhead, G., Hong, T., & Chang, A. (2021) · Clinical ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s205147 · Cited by 23
Principal Cause of Poor Visual Acuity after Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Okeagu, C. U., Agrón, E., Vitale, S., Domalpally, A., Chew, E. Y., & Keenan, T. D. L. (2020) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2020.09.025 · Cited by 21
Pető, T., Evans, R., Reeves, B. C., Harding, S. P., Madhusudhan, S., Lotery, A. J., Downes, S. M., Balaskas, K., Bailey, C., Foss, A. J. E., et al. (2022) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2022.03.010 · Cited by 21
Kim, J. H., Kim, J. W., Kim, C. G., & Lee, D. W. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm9041145 · Cited by 21
“In cases where the fibrotic scar was eventually replaced by GA [33], the eye was included in the GA group.”
BackgroundInfluentialDaftarian, N., Rohani, S., Kanavi, M. R., et al. (2019) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2019.04.027 · Cited by 19
Hyperreflective material as a biomarker in neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Casalino, G., Scialdone, A., Bandello, F. M., & Chakravarthy, U. (2020) · Expert Review of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1080/17469899.2020.1745062 · Cited by 18
Roberts, P. K., Schranz, M. W., Motschi, A. R., Desissaire, S., Häcker, V., Pircher, M., Sacu, S., Buehl, W., Hitzenberger, C. K. F., & Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M. (2021) · Translational Vision Science & Technology · doi:10.1167/tvst.10.14.1 · Cited by 17
Effects of autophagy inhibitor 3-methyladenine on a diabetic mice model
Ren, H.-W., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.18240/ijo.2023.09.12 · Cited by 16
Song, M. Y., Kim, Y., Han, K., & Kim, J. H. (2024) · Ophthalmic Epidemiology · doi:10.1080/09286586.2024.2321892 · Cited by 17
Jiang, Y., Wen, X., Jian, X., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Molecular Medicine · doi:10.3892/ijmm.2025.5486 · Cited by 16
“Currently, anti‑VEGF treatment is the most widely applied therapeutic strategy for CNV but subretinal fibrosis can still develop (6).”
Brandli, A. A., Khong, F. L., Kong, R. C. K., Kelly, D. J., & Fletcher, E. L. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-04845-4 · Cited by 18
Invernizzi, A., Teo, K. Y. C., Nguyen, V., et al. (2018) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312944 · Cited by 16
Jia, H., Lu, B., Zhao, Z. Y., Yang, Y., Wang, F., Zhou, M., & Sun, X. (2022) · Eye and Vision · doi:10.1186/s40662-022-00287-1 · Cited by 15
“[31, 32] found that patients with type 2 NVs (e.”
BackgroundHussein, Z. R., Omar, S. K., Alkazraji, R. A. M., Alsamarrai, A. N., Alrubaye, H. S., & Al-Hussaniy, H. A. (2023) · Journal of Medicine and Life · doi:10.25122/jml-2022-0356 · Cited by 15
“in a posthoc analysis [47], where increased hemorrhage (>1 disk diameter) was shown to be a risk factor for scar development, suggesting that the poor visual prognosis of these massive hemorrhagic lesions may be related to the risk of scar formation.”
BackgroundXu, H., Yi, C., & Chen, M. (2024) · Current Opinion in Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2024.102448 · Cited by 14
Mares, V., Reiter, G. S., Gumpinger, M., Leigang, O., Bogunović, H., Barthelmes, D., Nehemy, M. B., & Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M. (2024) · Acta Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1111/aos.16799 · Cited by 13
“The CATT study showed a cumulative proportion of SF increasing from 32% to 56%, and of MA increasing from 12% to 38% from year 1 to year 5 under standardized anti-VEGF protocols (Daniel et al., 2018; Grunwald et al., 2017).”
Wang, Y., Fang, Q., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., Gou, T., Cai, Q., Yin, H., Gao, Y., Feng, Y., Qiu, S., et al. (2020) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2020.108417 · Cited by 13
Kodjikian, L., Rezkallah, A., Decullier, É., Aulagner, G., Huot, L., & Mathis, T. (2021) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2021.04.015 · Cited by 12
Emerging opportunities for C3 inhibition in the eye
Kim, B. J., Liu, T., Mastellos, D. C., & Lambris, J. D. (2022) · Seminars in Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.smim.2022.101633 · Cited by 14
Self-citationGabrielle, P., Nguyen, V., Arnold, J., Bhandari, S., Viola, F., Tigchelaar-Besling, O. A. M., Garay‐Aramburu, G., O’Toole, L., Cheung, C. M. G., Barthelmes, D., et al. (2021) · Translational Vision Science & Technology · doi:10.1167/tvst.10.13.5 · Cited by 10
“2,3,5,7,15–18 The significance of our findings is that there is probably no other disease process that causes loss of the initial gains seen in eyes treated for nAMD.”
Izquierdo-Serra, J., Martín, R., Moll‐Udina, A., Bernal-Morales, C., Garay‐Aramburu, G., Sánchez‐Monroy, J., Arruabarrena, C., Fernández-Hortelano, A., Figueroa, M. S., Abraldes, M. J., et al. (2023) · Ophthalmology Retina · doi:10.1016/j.oret.2023.10.022 · Cited by 10
Potential of autophagy in subretinal fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Błasiak, J., Pawłowska, E., Heloterä, H., Йонов, М., Derwich, M., & Kaarniranta, K. (2025) · Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters · doi:10.1186/s11658-025-00732-8 · Cited by 10
“Blocked fluorescence in fluorescein angiography indicates extensive basal damage, increased retinal thickness, foveal subretinal fluid, and subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM) located beneath the center of the fovea at baseline [49, 50].”
Predictors of 24-month onset of macular fibrosis in type 3 macular neovascularisation
Forte, P., Fontana, V., Muzio, J., Cello, L. D., Corazza, P., Rosa, R., Musetti, D., Vagge, A., Traverso, C. E., & Nicolò, M. (2024) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2023-324713 · Cited by 10
Schranz, M. W., Sacu, S., Reiter, G. S., Baratsits, M., Desissaire, S., Pircher, M., Mylonas, G., Hitzenberger, C. K. F., Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M., & Roberts, P. K. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13041074 · Cited by 9
“However, increasing the precision of diagnosing retinal fibrosis is crucial as scarring is still a relevant limiting factor for the visual acuity of patients with nAMD [10–13].”
BackgroundGadiollet, E., Kodjikian, L., Vasson, F., Kodaday, K., Chirpaz, N., Wolff, B., Bats, F. D., Feldman, A., Pradat, P., Gascon, P., et al. (2024) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-024-03256-1 · Cited by 8
Lenhof, S., Kodjikian, L., Gascon, P., Gadiollet, E., Feldman, A., Bats, F. D., Wolff, B., Pradat, P., & Mathis, T. (2024) · Acta Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1111/aos.16759 · Cited by 8
“In contrast with our results, previous studies reported IRF as a risk factor for SF (Cheung et al., 2019; Finn et al., 2021; Llorente-González et al., 2022; Roberts et al., 2022), as well as SHRM (Daniel et al., 2014, 2018; Finn et al., 2021; Willoughby et al., 2015).”
InfluentialLim, Y., Campochiaro, P. A., & Green, J. J. (2024) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.12.010 · Cited by 9
Gandhewar, R., de Guimarães, T. A. C., Sen, S., Pontikos, N., Moghul, I., Empeslidis, T., Michaelides, M., & Balaskas, K. (2025) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-025-06790-0 · Cited by 8
“1 ( A ) Flowchart outlining literature review strategy ( B ) Summary of study types included of atrophic and fibrotic scar development included classic choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), good baseline VA in the other eye and the presence of large haemorrhage [18].”
InfluentialScoles, D., Ying, G., Pan, W., Hua, P., Grunwald, J. E., Daniel, E., Jaffe, G. J., Toth, C. A., Martin, D. F., & Maguire, M. G. (2020) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.5831 · Cited by 7
Self-citationChong Teo, K. Y., Nguyen, V., Gemmy Cheung, C. M., Arnold, J., Chen, F. K., Barthelmes, D., & Gillies, M. C. (2021) · Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000003267 · Cited by 6
Cao, Y. Y., Dang, M., Tian, Z., Zhang, T., Hou, L., Wang, M., Xing, S.-H., Huang, Y., & Li, J. (2024) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-024-03614-3 · Cited by 7
“Little et al. demonstrated that anti-VEGF may inhibit the prevalence of macular scar in eyes and could be a potential treatment to subretinal fibrosis [21], although there were some contradictory results [22].”
ResultLiu, S., Zheng, M., Sun, H., Pan, C., Li, D., Zhou, X., & Zheng, Z. (2024) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1451726 · Cited by 7
Pauleikhoff, D., Yu, S., Bachmeier, I., Armendariz, B. G., Bormann, E., & Pauleikhoff, L. J. B. (2024) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-024-06712-6 · Cited by 8
“However, about 50% of eyes develop fibrosis and macular atrophy 5–7 years after treatment initiation [7–9].”
Poor Response to Bevacizumab Correlates With Higher IL-6 and IL-8 Aqueous Cytokines in AMD
Connolly, E., El-Farouki, G., Brennan, K., Cahill, M. T., & Doyle, S. (2024) · Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.65.11.37 · Cited by 9
“Failure to respond to treat-ment is known to be influenced by lesion type and disease severity 4,6 ; however, these factors do not fully explain the degree of poor response observed in these studies.”
Nguyen, V., Puzo, M., Sánchez‐Monroy, J., Gabrielle, P., Creuzot-Garcher, C. P., Baudin, F., Wolff, B., Castelnovo, L., Michel, G., O’Toole, L., et al. (2020) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000003061 · Cited by 6
“The estimated percentage (95% CI) of eyes developing new SF was 9% (4, 13), 19% (13, 24), and 13% (8, 19) for eyes that were mostly inactive, mostly ANSRFL only, and mostly A-SRFL only, respectively.”
BackgroundHosokawa, M. M., Ouchi, C., Shiode, Y., Kimura, S., Matoba, R., Morita, T., & Morizane, Y. (2024) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-024-06453-6 · Cited by 5
“This result is consistent with those of previous reports [17].”
Pu, J., Zhuang, X., Li, M., Zhang, X., Ji, Y., Mi, L., Hao, X., He, G., Su, Y., Gan, Y., et al. (2025) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2025-327339 · Cited by 5
Kodaday, K., Kodjikian, L., Gadiollet, E., Chirpaz, N., Loria, O., Feldman, A., Bats, F. D., Burillon, C., Denis, P., Pradat, P., et al. (2023) · Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1159/000529409 · Cited by 5
Xie, H., Ju, H., Lu, J., Wang, X., & Peng, H. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62536-8 · Cited by 5
Chakravarthy, U., Csincsik, L., Teo, K. Y. C., Munk, M. R., Grewal, D. S., Guymer, R. H., Jaffe, G. J., Pető, T., Sadda, S. R., Staurenghi, G., et al. (2025) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.101027 · Cited by 6
“10 — 15 In 1 study with long-term follow-up, nearly half of eyes without fibrosis at baseline undergoing ongoing anti-VEGF treat-ment developed fibrosis by 8.3 years.”
InfluentialSelf-citationColetto, A., Serafino, S., Olivieri, C., et al. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2025.05.019 · Cited by 4
Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): Non-neovascular and Neovascular AMD
Chaikitmongkol, V., Bressler, S. B., & Bressler, N. M. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-42634-7_111 · Cited by 5
Li, T., & Zhou, X. (2021) · Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1155/2021/8873283 · Cited by 4
“AMD with abnormal CNV under or nearby the macula or not affected a great number of the aging population worldwide [15, 16] and was one of the leading causes of blindness in the industrialized countries [17, 18].”
Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Wang, L., Yang, X., & Zhou, A. (2022) · International Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.18240/ijo.2022.02.01 · Cited by 5
Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): Non-neovascular and Neovascular AMD
Chaikitmongkol, V., Bressler, S. B., & Bressler, N. M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90495-5_111-1 · Cited by 4
Yang, X., Ma, A., Liu, Y., He, Z.-C., Yu, J., Su, S., Chen, J., & Sang, A. (2025) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2025.110588 · Cited by 3
Macular fibrosis secondary to neovascular age-related macular degeneration: from clinic to biology
Xu, H., Pu, J., Yi, C., Deng, W., Yuan, X., Chen, Z., Xiang, Q., Wang, Q., Wen, F., & Chen, M. (2026) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2026.101488 · Cited by 4
Simultaneous GA and CNV/MNV: incidence, characteristics, and treatments
Kataoka, K., Gale, R. P., Li, X., Şermet, F., Qian, C. X., Cheung, C. M. G., Tsilimbaris, M. K., & Kozak, I. (2025) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-024-06721-5 · Cited by 3
“These include the development of fibrotic scars and the presence of type 3 neovascularization [17, 20].”
Sheibani, N., Song, Y., Farnoodian, M., Inampudi, S., Hanna, B. A., Wang, S., Darjatmoko, S. R., & Sorenson, C. M. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms251910254 · Cited by 2
The effect of age on wound healing in the laser induced choroidal neovascularization model
Horrigan, W. F., Caron, Q. R., Rodriguez, A., et al. (2025) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2025.110790 · Cited by 2
Mercuri, S., Sacu, S., Frank‐Publig, S., et al. (2026) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2026.101190 · Cited by 2
“56 In our analysis, SHRM at baseline was associated with an increased chance of atrophy, but not fibrosis.”
Riedl, S., Birner, K., & Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M. (2025) · Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift · doi:10.1007/s10354-024-01069-1 · Cited by 2
Huang, Z.-H., Tu, X., Lin, Q., Tu, M., Guo-cai, L., & Zhang, K. (2024) · World Journal of Radiology · doi:10.4329/wjr.v16.i9.418 · Cited by 1
Kim, J. H., Park, S. M., Kim, C. G., & Kim, C. G. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-72670-y · Cited by 1
“In the present study, subretinal hemorrhage, known to be associated with the high risk of fibrosis 25,26 , was noted in 28.8% of the cases included.”
BackgroundInfluentialFibrogliosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: A new mechanistic perspective
Merle, D. A., Beretta, F., Sacconi, R., & Querques, G. (2025) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2025.09.019 · Cited by 2
Management of fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Chakravarthy, U., Foss, A. J. E., Panos, G. D., Pető, T., Rotsos, T., Sadda, S. R., Cock, E. D., & Empeslidis, T. (2025) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-025-06890-x · Cited by 3
“Fibrosis, sometimes termed a disciform scar [3], is a common end-stage sequela of nAMD associated with poor long-term visual outcomes [4].”
Kodjikian, L., Abukhashabah, A., Fardeau, C., et al. (2022) · Acta Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1111/aos.15214 · Cited by 1
Microfluidic systems to examine Müller glia responses to anti-VEGF treatments
Peña, J. S., & Vázquez, M. (2021) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01622-x · Cited by 1
Willmington, C., Kirby, A., & Murphy, A. (2025) · Health Economics Review · doi:10.1186/s13561-025-00707-7
“Even with optimal adherence, anti-VEGFs’ effectiveness can subside in nAMD patients, owing to underlying pathological changes occurring over time, leading to further vision loss [71, 72].”
Lamin, A. (2019) · UCL Discovery (University College London)
Gaur, S., Singh, D. V., Reddy, R. R., & Sharma, A. K. (2022) · BMJ Case Reports · doi:10.1136/bcr-2021-244771
Comparison of Real-world Treatment Outcomes between Type 1 and Type 2 Choroidal Neovascularization
Kim, M. J., Kim, K. S., & Yang, H. J. (2022) · Journal of Retina · doi:10.21561/jor.2022.7.2.98
赵, 晓. (2024) · Advances in Clinical Medicine · doi:10.12677/acm.2024.143939
Can We Do Better for Submacular Hemorrhage in Neovascular AMD?
Weng, C. Y. (2024) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.4378
PACHYCHOROID NEITHER PROMOTES NOR INHIBITS THE FORMATION OF FIBROSIS IN MACULAR NEOVASCULARIZATION
Oka, A., Murakami, R., Machida, A., et al. (2025) · Retina · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000004569
Jonas, J. B., Jonas, R. A., Bikbov, M. M., Kazakbaeva, G. M., Wang, Y. X., Nangia, V. B., & Panda‐Jonas, S. (2025) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.100885
“21 Romano et al 22 followed 225 naive eyes undergoing intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment of neo-vascular AMD for > 10 years.”
Long-term evolution of macular fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degenerationPreprint
Valverde-Megías, A., Fernández‐Vigo, J. I., Etxabe-Ávila, H., et al. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879463/v1
Adrean, S. D., Hill, L., & Amador-Patarroyo, J. (2025) · Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases · doi:10.1177/24741264251389993
“10 Of note, between years 2 and 5, there was an increase in the mean size of fibrotic scars, which accompanied the decrease in vision, 10,11 highlighting the importance of preventing the initial development of fibrosis.”
Yi, C., Liu, J., Deng, W., Luo, C., Qi, J., Chen, M., & Xu, H. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22604159
Association Between Retinal Vein Occlusion and Epiretinal Membrane Development
Almosa, A., Alshaikhsalama, A. M., Abdi, A., et al. (2026) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2026.02.030
Metadata
- Authors
- Daniel, E., Pan, W., Ying, G.-S., Kim, B. J., Grunwald, J. E., Ferris, F. L., Jaffe, G. J., Toth, C. A., Martin, D. F., Fine, S. L., & Maguire, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- National Eye Institute (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- Corresponding author
- Daniel, Ebenezer
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1037-1046
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6015772
- OpenAlex
- W2788023813
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 8.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Eye Institute (U10EY017825, U10EY017826, R21EY023689, U10EY023530, P30EY001583)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal and Macular Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- age-related macular degeneration, choroidal neovascularization, fibrotic scar, macular atrophy, subretinal fluid, subretinal hemorrhage, subretinal hyperreflective material, retinal pigment epithelium elevation, anti-VEGF therapy, photodynamic therapy, long-term outcomes, visual acuity outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cicatrix, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Fibrosis, Fluorescein Angiography, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Photography, Prospective Studies, Retina, Risk Factors, Visual Acuity, Cohort Studies, Incidence, Choroidal Neovascularization, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Geographic Atrophy, 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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
