Ranibizumab alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy vs photodynamic therapy for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) alone or in combination with photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs PDT in patients with symptomatic polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). METHODS: A systematic search of a wide range of databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) was searched to identify relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT studies were included. Methodological quality of included literatures was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RevMan 5.2.7 software was used to do the Meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three RCTs and 6 retrospective studies were included. The results showed that PDT monotherapy had a significantly higher proportion in patients who achieved complete regression of polyps than IVR monotherapy at months 3, 6, and 12 (All P≤0.01), respectively. However, IVR had a tendency to be more effective in improving vision on the basis of RCTs. The proportion of patients who gained complete regression of polyps revealed that there was no significant difference between the combination treatment and PDT monotherapy. The mean change of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline showed that the combination treatment had significant superiority in improving vision vs PDT monotherapy at months 3, 6 and 24 (All P<0.05), respectively. In the mean time, this comparison result was also significant at month 12 (P<0.01) after removal of a heterogeneous study. CONCLUSION: IVR has non-inferiority compare with PDT either in stabilizing or in improving vision, although it can hardly promote the regression of polyps. The combination treatment of PDT and IVR can exert a synergistic effect on regressing polyps and on maintaining or improving visual acuity. Thus, it can be the first-line therapy for PCV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".