Question · asked by 1 review
Summary of findings: intravitreal bevacizumab plus intravitreal steroid vs intravitreal steroid: Change in visual acuity (logMAR) ‐ 12 months (negative is better)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: intravitreal bevacizumab plus intravitreal steroid vs intravitreal steroid Mean change in visual acuity at 1 year (number of letters read on logMAR chart) · adults with centre‐involving diabetic macular oedema Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.