Cochrane · systematic review · CD004004
Radiotherapy for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
Evans, JR, Igwe, C, Jackson, TL, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 21.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 14.3%Low 7 · 50%Moderate 2 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsRadiotherapy versus control for neovascular AMD
Population: people with neovascular AMD
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Loss of 3 or more lines of best‐corrected visual acuity Measured using a logMAR chart Radiotherapy vs control | RR 0.82 [0.64, 1.04] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Change in best corrected visual acuity (logMAR units) Measured using a logMAR chart. Lower scores represent better visual acuity Radiotherapy vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Contrast sensitivity (log contrast threshold) Measured using a Pelli‐Robson chart. Higher scores represent better contrast sensitivity. Radiotherapy vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
New vessel growth Measured using fluorescein angiography or fundus photographs Radiotherapy vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Quality of life Radiotherapy vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Any adverse outcome Radiotherapy vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Number of anti‐VEGF injections Radiotherapy vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF versus anti‐VEGF alone for neovascular AMD
Population: people with neovascular AMD
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Loss of 3 or more lines of best‐corrected visual acuity Measured using a logMAR chart Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | RR 2.11 [1.4, 3.17] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Change in best corrected visual acuity (logMAR units) Measured using a logMAR chart. Lower scores represent better visual acuity Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | mean difference 0.1 | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Contrast sensitivity (log contrast threshold) Measured using a Pelli‐Robson chart. Higher scores represent better contrast sensitivity. Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
New vessel growth Measured using fluorescein angiography or fundus photographs Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Quality of life Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Any adverse outcome Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of anti‐VEGF injections Radiotherapy combined with anti‐VEGF vs anti‐VEGF alone | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |