ArticleScientific reports2024
Time to initiate anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and visual outcome in central retinal vein occlusion.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual acuity and retinal thickness outcomes following anti-VEGF therapy in RVO: influence of early vs. delayed treatment.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Short and long-term impact of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy interruption in retinal vein occlusion during the COVID-19 pandemic: functional outcomes and AI-based fluid analysis of macular edema.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to investigate the progression of central retinal vein occlusion (CVO) prior to treatment initiation and its impact on prognosis. Of the 54 studied eyes with acute CVO, the average logMAR visual acuity (VA) at the initial visit was 0.65 ± 0.49 with an average time to treatment of 14.9 ± 14.5 days. VA at the initial treatment was identified as a stronger predictor of VA at the final visit compared to VA at the first visit or other factors. Patients who received treatment more than 28 days after the initial visit experienced a significant decline in VA compared to those treated within 28 days (0.21 ± 0.35 vs. 0.04 ± 0.13, p = 0.006). Additionally, patients who were treated between 15 and 28 days showed a greater decrease in VA compared to those treated within 14 days (0.12 ± 0.46 vs. 0.018 ± 0.02, p = 0.026). These findings from the current retrospective analysis suggesting that there is a possibility of VA decline at the initial treatment associating with worse prognosis even when treatment is administered within a month should be further investigated in the prospective study. Also, it may be crucial to consider frequent monitoring of acute CVO patients for initiating treatment at the optimal timing.
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.