Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40374931›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2025

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Jennifer I Lim, Stella Ko, Mark McAllister, Nancy Faux, Komal Bawa, Elizabeth Mearns, Shriji Patel, Galin Spicer, Amanda Martinez, David Tabano

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors.

Jennifer I LimDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Stella KoGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mark McAllisterDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Nancy FauxDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Komal BawaGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Elizabeth MearnsGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Shriji PatelGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Galin SpicerGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4423-582X
Amanda MartinezCollege of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-3476-7019
David TabanoGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA. tabano.david@gene.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7657-0809

Funding

Genentech (Genentech, Inc.) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesTo assess geographically global clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) management.

methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) of CPGs for nAMD management was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases, Guideline Central, Health Technology Assessment bodies, professional ophthalmology associations, and backwards citation tracking. CPGs published between January 2010-October 2023 were included and independently assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). CPGs were qualitatively assessed for anatomical measurements (optical coherence tomography [OCT] and visual acuity [VA]). PROSPERO identification is CRD42023473223.

resultsNine of 147 identified global CPGs were included in the SLR for diagnosis, treatment, and disease monitoring for nAMD. Overall AGREE II scores were 62-95 (mean [standard deviation] score 75 [10.6]). Strongest domains were Scope and Purpose (86.6 [11.0]), Clarity of Presentation (84.3 [13.0]), and Editorial Independence (89.1 [15.4]); Stakeholder Involvement (63.4 [16.6]), Applicability (73.0 [12.6]), and Rigor of Development (55.4 [25.9]) were lowest. 4/9 CPGs were "Recommended" by reviewers, and 5/9 were "Recommended with Modifications". All CPGs recommended OCT for initial diagnosis. 2/9 CPGs did not mention VA. For managing pharmacological interventions, 4/9 CPGs recommended using VA, and three recommended OCT. Eight CPGs recommended using either VA or OCT for disease monitoring while on anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. 6/9 CPGs recommended screening for VA and 7/9 CPGs recommended using OCT to change anti-VEGF intervals.

conclusionCPG methods, recommendations on applicability in resource-constrained systems, and patient advocacy/perspectives will improve CPG trustworthiness and transparency.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsDisease ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicWet Macular DegenerationHumansTomography, Optical CoherenceVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID40374931
PMCPMC12274593

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.