Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2026
Baseline visual acuity gaps in age-related macular degeneration: AREDS smokers and non-smokers.
Observational study in BMC ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries. Smoking is the only modifiable risk factor and is associated with faster AMD progression. While Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) supplements are recommended for intermediate AMD, their impact on visual acuity over time remains unclear.
objectiveTo describe baseline disparities and visual acuity trajectories in patients with intermediate dry AMD stratified by AREDS use and smoking status.
designRetrospective observational study of patients with intermediate dry AMD conducted under IRB protocol 22-0267. Data collected from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2024.
settingSingle academic medical center.
participantsA total of 450 patients (759 eligible eyes) with intermediate dry AMD (ICD code H35.3192) were included. Patients were stratified by smoking status and AREDS use. Participants with fewer than three ophthalmology visits during the 10-year study period were excluded. EXPOSURE: AREDS supplementation (AREDS1 or AREDS2) and smoking status (current/former vs. never). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Visual acuity measured in Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (LogMAR) at first and final clinic visits. ANOVA, Chi-square tests, and mixed effect regression models were used for analysis. Changes in LogMAR over time were calculated descriptively.
resultsAmong 450 patients (mean age, 82.32 years), 255 were smokers (423 eyes) and 195 were non-smokers (336 eyes). Baseline vision was better in non-smokers (mean LogMAR 0.28; SD 0.28) and smokers (mean LogMAR 0.30; SD 0.33) taking AREDS compared to non-smokers (mean LogMAR 0.48; SD 0.44) and smokers (mean LogMAR 0.45; SD 0.47) not taking AREDS (P < 0.0001). All groups experienced visual acuity decline from baseline with no significant differences in final visual acuity among the groups in a mean follow up period of 3.62 years. In a sub-analysis of greater than 5 years follow up mean years of 6.93 ± 1.55 years), a statistically significant difference in final LogMAR values across groups was observed (p = 0.033). The Smokers & AREDS group demonstrated the best final visual acuity (mean 0.39, SD 0.40), followed by Smokers & No-AREDS (mean 0.44, SD 0.43), Non-smokers & AREDS (mean 0.46, SD 0.47), and Non-smokers & No-AREDS (mean 0.72, SD 0.60). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that less than 5 years AREDS users had larger decline in vision from baseline, protective associations of AREDS supplementation may become more discernible over longer follow-up horizons. Real-world observational findings should be interpreted cautiously and do not contradict AREDS efficacy shown in randomized trials.
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.