ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Outcomes in patients with retinal vein occlusion with good baseline visual acuity.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Baseline predictors of visual response and treatment burden after ranibizumab therapy in macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting Visual Acuity after Retinal Vein Occlusion Anti-VEGF Treatment: Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Prognosis and factors related to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with retinal vein occlusion and concomitant carotid artery disease.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) are first-line therapy for macular oedema in retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Appropriate management for RVO with good visual acuity at diagnosis has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the visual and anatomic outcomes from anti-VEGF treatment among RVO patients with good vision at baseline.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated patients diagnosed with macular oedema secondary to RVO from January 2012 to February 2021 at a tertiary ophthalmic centre. Patients had a Snellen acuity of 20/32 or better at diagnosis. Three cohorts were compared: patients with no anti-VEGF treatment, delayed anti-VEGF treatment (initial injection >30 days post-diagnosis) and immediate anti-VEGF treatment (initial injection ≤30 days post-diagnosis). Central subfield thickness (CST) and best visual acuity (BVA) were collected at diagnosis and 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up appointments.
resultsAmong 131 eyes, mean BVA values among treatment groups did not differ at 6-, 12- or 24-month follow up visits (P = 0.521, 0.426, 0.356, respectively). The percentage of eyes with at least a 5-letter BVA decrease at 24 months was 24.1%, 65.0% and 30.8% in the no treatment, delayed and immediate treatment groups respectively (P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the percentage of eyes with at least a 10% decrease in CST at 24 months among groups (P = 0.095).
conclusionsClose observation with initiation of treatment in patients with good visual acuity with macular oedema secondary to RVO as indicated has similar outcomes in the setting of routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.