ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Review of emerging imaging findings to reveal a broader spectrum of lesions in AMD.
Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of irreversible vision loss in developed countries, with prevalence expected to reach nearly 288 million by 2040. Accurate classification of AMD is critical for patient care and clinical research, guiding prognosis, therapeutic strategies, and the design of clinical trials. A widely adopted framework, the Beckman classification, stratifies AMD based primarily on color fundus photography (CFP) findings, defining stages from early to late disease. While simple and clinically applicable, such systems do not account for several key phenotypes revealed by advances in multimodal imaging. Such novel phenotypes include reticular pseudodrusen (RPD), acquired vitelliform lesions (AVL), non-exudative macular neovascularization (MNV), incomplete retinal pigment epithelium and outer retina atrophy (iRORA), and non-neovascular exudative fluid. Recent imaging modalities-including optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus autofluorescence (FAF), and OCT angiography (OCTA)-have uncovered features with important prognostic implications that are currently misclassified with respect to AMD. For example, eyes with RPD or AVL in the absence of drusen are currently misclassified as "early AMD" or excluded altogether, despite their high risk of progression. Similarly, the ambiguous status of non-exudative MNV, which carries both protective and harmful potential, highlights the need for greater granularity. The Classification of Atrophy Meetings (CAM) group has also introduced refined OCT-based definitions such as iRORA and cRORA, underscoring early degenerative changes that precede geographic atrophy. Moreover, novel entities like non-neovascular intraretinal or subretinal fluid challenge the assumption that exudation is synonymous with neovascular AMD. This review synthesizes recent evidence highlighting the limitations of current classification systems in light of these advances. Furthermore, we emphasize that intermediate AMD, currently treated as a uniform category, actually encompasses highly heterogeneous phenotypes with distinct risks and trajectories. A more nuanced, imaging-integrated classification system is urgently needed to improve disease staging, identify high-risk eyes, and ensure appropriate patient selection for emerging therapies. Such a framework would not only better reflect the complex natural history of AMD but also facilitate the regulatory shift toward continuous, quantitative endpoints in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42347990What 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.