Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32313172›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2020

A systematic review of real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion.

Juan Lyn Ang, Sarah Ah-Moye, Leah N Kim, Vuong Nguyen, Adrian Hunt, Daniel Barthelmes, Mark C Gillies, Hemal Mehta

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Juan Lyn AngOphthalmology Department, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sarah Ah-MoyeOphthalmology Department, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Leah N KimMacular Research Group, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Vuong NguyenMacular Research Group, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Adrian HuntMacular Research Group, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6261-4679
Daniel BarthelmesMacular Research Group, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mark C GilliesMacular Research Group, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hemal MehtaOphthalmology Department, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. HM@cantab.net.
The University of Sydney · AURoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review assessed the real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). A meta-analysis of 2530 eyes from 48 real-world studies of therapies for macular oedema secondary to BRVO was conducted. Baseline characteristics, visual, anatomical and safety outcomes were recorded. The weighted mean and weighted estimates from random-effects models were calculated for visual acuity (VA) and central subfield thickness (CST) changes at 6, 12 and 24 months. Primary outcome was change in VA (logMAR letters) at 12 months. Study quality was assessed using the quality appraisal checklist for case series developed by Institute of Health Economics. The mean baseline VA for the pooled data was 54.0 (51.5, 56.5) letters and the mean baseline CST was 501.3 (483.5, 519.1) µm. The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in VA was 14.6 (12.5, 16.7) letters at 12 months (n = 1727). The random-effects estimate for mean (95% CI) change in CST was -181.7 (-230.7, -132.7) µm at 12 months (n = 1325). The quality of studies varied considerably. Ocular and systemic adverse events were discussed in 79% and 42% of treatment arms respectively, with possible under-reporting. Visual and anatomical gains achieved in the real-world for anti-VEGF therapy were not as impressive as seminal RCTs, possibly due to reduced injection frequency in the real world and differences in baseline characteristics. There is an urgent need for consensus on the minimum efficacy, treatment burden and safety data to collect to strengthen the real-world evidence base.

Indexed as

Macular EdemaRetinal Vein OcclusionAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabHumansIntravitreal InjectionsRanibizumabTreatment OutcomeVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabRanibizumabVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID32313172
PMCPMC7608462
OpenAlexW3017243164

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.