Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 147 of the 147 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Real-world outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors

Open access
Mehta, Hemal, Tufail, Adnan, Daien, Vincent, Lee, Aaron Y., Nguyen, Vuong, Ozturk, Mehmet, Barthelmes, Daniel, Gillies, Mark C.·2018·Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
DOI 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.12.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Clinical trials identified intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF agents) have the potential to stabilise or even improve visual acuity outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a sight-threatening disease. Real-world evidence allows us to assess whether results from randomised controlled trials can be applied to the general population. We describe the development of global registries, in particular the Fight Retinal Blindness! registry that originated in Australia, the United Kingdom AMD Electronic Medical Records User Group and the IRIS registry in the USA. Real-world observations relating to efficacy, safety and resource utilisation of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular AMD are then summarised. Novel observations that would have been challenging to identify in a clinical trial setting are then highlighted, including the risk of late disease reactivation, outcomes in second versus first treated eyes, and the increased risk of posterior capsular rupture during cataract surgery in patients who have received intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy. We conclude by exploring future directions in the field. This includes the development of a global consensus on real-world outcome measures to allow greater comparison of results. Real-world neovascular AMD outcome registries can be linked with other databases to determine systemic safety or genetic predictors of treatment efficacy. Machine learning offers opportunities to extract useful insights from "Big Data" often collected in these registries. Real-world registries could be used by drug regulatory authorities and industry as an alternative to more costly and time-consuming phase 4 clinical trials, potentially allowing medication costs to be based on outcomes achieved.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.12.002

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 147 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Mehta, H., Tufail, A., Daien, V., Lee, A. Y., Nguyen, V., Ozturk, M., Barthelmes, D., & Gillies, M. C.
Venue
Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
65
Pages
127-146
ISSN
1350-9462 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.12.002
OpenAlex
W2782057573
Cited by
265
References
147
FWCI
28.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Real-world outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.12.002
The paper
Mehta, H., Tufail, A., Daien, V., Lee, A. Y., Nguyen, V., Ozturk, M., Barthelmes, D., & Gillies, M. C. (2018). Real-world outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.12.002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.