Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,607

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema

Open access
The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network·2015·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema are unknown. METHODS: At 89 clinical sites, we randomly assigned 660 adults (mean age, 61±10 years) with diabetic macular edema involving the macular center to receive intravitreous aflibercept at a dose of 2.0 mg (224 participants), bevacizumab at a dose of 1.25 mg (218 participants), or ranibizumab at a dose of 0.3 mg (218 participants). The study drugs were administered as often as every 4 weeks, according to a protocol-specified algorithm. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year. RESULTS: From baseline to 1 year, the mean visual-acuity letter score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better visual acuity; a score of 85 is approximately 20/20) improved by 13.3 with aflibercept, by 9.7 with bevacizumab, and by 11.2 with ranibizumab. Although the improvement was greater with aflibercept than with the other two drugs (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab and P=0.03 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab), it was not clinically meaningful, because the difference was driven by the eyes with worse visual acuity at baseline (P<0.001 for interaction). When the initial visual-acuity letter score was 78 to 69 (equivalent to approximately 20/32 to 20/40) (51% of participants), the mean improvement was 8.0 with aflibercept, 7.5 with bevacizumab, and 8.3 with ranibizumab (P>0.50 for each pairwise comparison). When the initial letter score was less than 69 (approximately 20/50 or worse), the mean improvement was 18.9 with aflibercept, 11.8 with bevacizumab, and 14.2 with ranibizumab (P<0.001 for aflibercept vs. bevacizumab, P=0.003 for aflibercept vs. ranibizumab, and P=0.21 for ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the rates of serious adverse events (P=0.40), hospitalization (P=0.51), death (P=0.72), or major cardiovascular events (P=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreous aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab improved vision in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema, but the relative effect depended on baseline visual acuity. When the initial visual-acuity loss was mild, there were no apparent differences, on average, among study groups. At worse levels of initial visual acuity, aflibercept was more effective at improving vision. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01627249.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1414264

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1001/archopht.126.12.1748 · DOI
  2. 10.1056/NEJM199412013312203 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1074/jbc.274.33.23463 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.031 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.039 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.016 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.05.062 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.031 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.045 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1007/s00417-008-1034-x · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182695b83 · doi:10.1097/iae.0b013e3182695b83
  13. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.034 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.393 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01825-1 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.1698 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/biomet/75.4.800 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1191/096228099671525676 · DOI
  20. 10.1093/aje/kwi188 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1136/bmj.308.6921.81 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.7150/thno/v01p0395 · DOI
  23. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31825db6ba · DOI
  24. Virgili G, 2014, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, CD007419
  25. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.03.053 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Moja L, 2014, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9, CD011230
  27. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3591 · DOI

Cited by

See all 1,607

Metadata

Authors
The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2015-03-26
Volume
372
Issue
13
Pages
1193-1203
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1786299986
Cited by
1,607
References
5
FWCI
160.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1414264
The paper
The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. (2015). Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1414264

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.