Cited by 119Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal and Macular SurgeryRetinal Imaging and Analysis

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 access

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.01.004

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

23 of 39 cited sources checked · 9 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 78 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
27 of 27

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Fellow-eye visual acuity has conflicting hazard ratios

    Minor

    The abstract reports an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 for fellow-eye visual acuity of 20/20 versus 20/50 or worse, but the Results report 1.34 for the same comparison. The confidence intervals also differ.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 119

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
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
125
Issue
7
Pages
1037-1046
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
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
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