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
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 eyes that had both fibrotic scar and atrophy, there was no strong correlation between the area of the scar and the area of the atrophy with correlation coefficients of 0.41 at Year 1 (N=12; p=0.18), 0.35 at Year 2 (N= 16; p=0.18); and 0.01 at Year 5 (N=37 eyes, p=0.96).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 37- 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
“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) > Abstract > Results
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
“The difference in the annual rate of expansion was −0.14 (0.7) DA (p= 0.79 (Wilcoxon signed rank).”
§ 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.
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
“classic CNV (aHR 4.49, 95% C.I 3.34, 6.04) vs occult”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The presence of predominantly classic CNV was associated with 4.5 fold risk (adjusted Hazards Ratio (aHR) 4.49, 95% Confidence Interval (C.I) 3.34, 6.04, p<0.001) compared with occult CNV.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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.
- 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
“At 1 year, macular atrophy associated with fibrotic scar was observed in 12 eyes (18%)”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 12- 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
“However two other baseline risk factors with a higher risk of scar were discovered: a better visual acuity in the fellow eye and large hemorrhages.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“RPE elevation absence (1.71, 95% C.I 1.21, 2.41)”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The absence of RPE elevation (aHR 1.71, 95% C.I 1.21, 2.41, p=0.002) and subretinal hyperreflective material (aHR 1.72, 95% C.I. 1.25, 2.36, p<0.001) increased the risk of scar by 70%.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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.
- 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
“At 2 years, atrophy was observed in 16 eyes (24%)”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 16- 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
“hemorrhage > 1 disc area (2.28, 95% C.I. 1.49, 3.47) vs no hemorrhage”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Large hemorrhages (>1 Disc Area (DA)) were associated with more than a two-fold risk (aHR 2.28, 95% C.I. 1.49, 3.47, p<0.001) compared to no hemorrhages associated with the CNV.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
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
“and many of the hemorrhages were larger than 1 disc area.”
§ 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.
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 annual expansion rate of the fibrotic scar present in 68 eyes at year 1 was 0.02 (0.41) DA (range −1.40, 2.47) (median=0.004) while it was 0.20 (0.71) between year 2 and year 5 (range −0.94, 3.56) (median=0.01).”
§ 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.
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 5 years, atrophy was observed in 37 eyes (54%) and the mean (SD) VA was 44 [≈ 20/125] (27) while in eyes without atrophy the mean VA was 53 [≈ 20/80] (25) letters (p=0.21).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 37- 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 was no significant correlation between scar growth and atrophy growth.”
§ 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.
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 16 eyes with atrophy at 2 years, the mean (SD) annual rate of area increase was 0.59 (0.53) (range 0 to 1.53, median 0.51 DA).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 16- 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 rate of growth for both was similar between the clinical trial and observation periods.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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
“The mean VA (SD) was 38 [≈ 20/160] (27) letters at year 5 in 8 eyes where atrophy completely replaced the fibrotic scars.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 8- 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
“Atrophy replaced fibrotic scar in 8 eyes at year 5.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The mean VA (SD) was 38 [≈ 20/160] (27) letters at year 5 in 8 eyes where atrophy completely replaced the fibrotic scars.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plaindirectn = 8- 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.
- 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 5-year CATT follow-up study results show that relatively large hemorrhages present at enrollment, if observed over longer durations, more than double the risk of developing a scar.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“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.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
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
“At 1 year, macular atrophy associated with fibrotic scar was observed in 12 eyes (18%) and the mean (SD) VA was 70 [≈ 20/40] (15) while in eyes without macular atrophy associated with scar the mean VA was 59[≈ 20/63] (22) letters (p=0.11).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 12- 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
“subretinal tissue complex thickness >275 um (2.64, 95% CI.1.81, 3.84) vs <=75um”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Risk increased with the thickness of the subretinal tissue complex at the foveal center with more than a 2.5-fold risk for thickness >275 μm (aHR 2.64, 95% C.I. 1.81, 3.84, p<0.001) compared to a thickness ≤ 75 μm.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
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
“Rate of new scar formation declined after two years.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
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
“At 5 years, atrophy was observed in 37 eyes (54%)”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 37- 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 difference in the annual rate of expansion was not statistically significant (p= 0.33 (Wilcoxon signed rank test).”
§ 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.
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
“subretinal hyperreflective material (1.72, 95% CI 1.25, 2.36)”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The absence of RPE elevation (aHR 1.71, 95% C.I 1.21, 2.41, p=0.002) and subretinal hyperreflective material (aHR 1.72, 95% C.I. 1.25, 2.36, p<0.001) increased the risk of scar by 70%.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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.
- 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
“Similarly there were no significant associations with demographic or ocular characteristics between eyes with expanding atrophy and those without such expansion in years 1, 2 or 5.”
§ 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.
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
“eyes with subretinal fluid thickness of >0 to <=25 μm had increased risk (aHR 1.84, 95% C.I. 1.21, 2.80, p=0.01) compared to eyes without any subretinal fluid.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
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
“The mean annual expansion rate of the fibrotic scar present in 68 eyes at year 1 was 0.02 (0.41) DA (range −1.40, 2.47) (median=0.004) while it was 0.20 (0.71) between year 2 and year 5 (range −0.94, 3.56) (median=0.01).”
§ 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.
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, atrophy was observed in 16 eyes (24%) and the mean (SD) VA was 71 [≈ 20/40] (13) while in eyes without atrophy the mean VA was 61[≈ 20/63] (19) letters (p=0.04).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 16 ·- 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
“subretinal fluid thickness >25um (1.31, 95% CI 0.97, 1.75) vs no fluid”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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
“These risk factors, with the exception of blocked fluorescence, remained significantly associated with the development of scar through the additional 3 years of follow up.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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 significant associations with demographic or ocular characteristics between eyes with atrophy and those without atrophy in years 1, 2 or 5.”
§ 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.
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 >212 um (2.58, 95% C.I. 1.69, 3.94) vs <120 um”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Eyes with central retinal thickness (CRT) of >212 μm had increased risk (aHR 2.58, C.I. 1.69, 3.94, p<0.001) compared to eyes with CRT of <120 μm”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
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.
- 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
“Among the 12 eyes with atrophy at year 1, the mean (SD) of atrophy area increase was 0.73 (0.59) DA (range 0.03 to 1.53, median 0.82 DA).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plainn = 12- 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 68 eyes that developed fibrotic scar at year 1, visual acuity decreased by a mean of additional 13 letters between year 1 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: 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
“The number of treated eyes having pigmentation in or around the fibrotic scars was observed to increase proportionally with the years of follow up, starting with 14% during the first year and involving more than half the subjects at year 5.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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 summary, a relatively small percentage of CATT subjects develop scar after 2 years compared to the first two years under anti-VEGF treatment.”
§ 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.
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
“As for fibrotic scar area expansion, the annualized increase in area was similar in the period of Year 1 to Year 2 and the period of Year 2 to Year 5.”
§ 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 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
“The atrophy process increases with time”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Also, limited by the small sample size, we were unable to identify any baseline demographic or ocular features that would predict the development and expansion of atrophy.”
§ 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.
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 our study we were unable to find a strong correlation between scar area and atrophy area at all three follow up time points where images were available for assessment.”
§ 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.
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 little change in the average size of fibrotic scar between year 1 and 2”
§ 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.
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
“By 5 years, only 15% of the fibrotic scars at year 1 remained stable without any observable changes in the color images.”
§ 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.
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
“Large hemorrhages at enrollment appear to influence scar formation at later periods of follow up.”
§ 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: 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
“Macular atrophy associated with fibrotic scar develops within or adjacent to the scar and can encircle the scar partially or completely (Figure 2).”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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
“and the mean VA was maintained or was slightly better at year 2 compared with year 1.”
§ 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.
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
“Five years after enrollment, atrophy was observed in a little more than half of eyes that had developed a fibrotic scar at 1 year.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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
“Once a fibrotic scar developed during the first year after initiation of anti-VEGF therapy, several changes were observed in and around the scar over a period of time.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“We observed a slow average increase in the area of fibrotic scar”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“We also found the risk due to predominantly classic lesions at enrollment for developing a scar increased from 3-fold at two years to 4.5-fold through 5 years.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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 a tenth of eyes with fibrotic scar at year 1, atrophy appears to completely replace the fibrotic scar by year 5.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
hedgeddirect- 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
“over the time between the Year 2 visit and the Year 5 visit, the mean size of the fibrotic scar increased”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Mean VA in eyes that had atrophy at year 1 and 2 was good compared to eyes without atrophy”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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
“Contiguous macular atrophy developed in an increasing number of eyes through 5 years”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“We were unable to find any significant association with atrophy incidence or expansion with any of the baseline demographic or ocular characteristics.”
§ 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 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
“with a corresponding decrease in the mean VA in these eyes at year 5.”
§ 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.
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 annualized rate of growth was similar from Year 1 to 2 and Year 2 to 5”
§ 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.
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 area expanded in size.”
§ 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.
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
“Several morphological features, including classic CNV and large hemorrhage, are associated with scar formation.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
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
“Therefore the CATT cohort presented a unique opportunity to study eyes with hemorrhages that were more than 50% of the total CNV lesion”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Despite this change from the CATT clinical trial protocol and a longer follow up period of 3 years, only an additional 10% of subjects developed scar, indicating that in eyes with nAMD treated with anti-VEGF therapy, the majority of scars occur within the 1st year of treatment.”
§ Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degenerations Treatments Trials (CATT) > 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.
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
“Although the follow-up at 2 years among living patients was high (93%)”
§ 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.
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 loss to follow up may have resulted in inaccurate estimation of the incidence of scar from year 2 to year 5.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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
“only 71% of living patients completed a follow-up study visit.”
§ 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.
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
“unlike in our study that prospectively followed up fibrotic scars that had developed during the first year of therapy.”
§ 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.
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
“Expanding areas of atrophy are likely to produce scotomas and substantially affect vision when they involve the foveal center.”
§ 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: 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
“Myopic CNV treated with anti-VEGF have been shown to have similar development of fibrotic scars and associated progressive chorioretinal atrophy with poor visual outcome.32”
§ 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 [32] Ahn, 2016, Subretinal fibrosis after antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy in eyes with myopic choroidal neovascularization, Retina 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.
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
“probably due to ongoing organization of the collagen fibers and/or development of new areas of nAMD.”
§ 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.
- 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].”
Background
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
