ArticlePloS one2026
OphthoEvidence Report: Comparative effects of treatments for geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration: A protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeographic atrophy (GA), an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), leads to legal blindness in approximately 16% of affected individuals within 6 years. Numerous trials have evaluated interventions to slow GA progression, and many studies are ongoing. However, the comparative benefits and harms of treatments within this rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape have not yet been systematically synthesized.
objectivesTo present a protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the effects of available interventions for the management of GA.
methodsWe systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception for randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatment versus another, placebo, sham, or standard care in adults with unilateral or bilateral GA secondary to AMD. Paired reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data, and assess risk of bias. Outcomes of interest include best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), untransformed and square root-transformed total GA lesion area, vision-related quality of life, low luminance BCVA, reading speed, mean macular sensitivity, adverse events leading to discontinuation, macular neovascularization, need for rescue treatment, ischemic optic neuropathy, serious ocular adverse events, and serious non-ocular adverse events. For each outcome, if feasible, we will conduct frequentist random-effects NMAs. We will assess the certainty of evidence and interpret findings using the GRADE approach. To maintain this review as a living systematic review, we will conduct updates every six months. DISCUSSION: This review will provide a comprehensive, trustworthy, and up-to-date summary of evidence on treatments for GA secondary to AMD. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4JHR).
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.