The management of neovascular age‐related macular degeneration: A systematic literature review of patient‐reported outcomes, patient mental health and caregiver burden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic literature review was to describe patient-reported outcomes, mental health and caregiver burden in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in Embase and MEDLINE according to pre-defined criteria. RESULTS: Of 856 records identified, 63 met inclusion criteria. Depression or depressive symptoms were reported in up to 42% of patients with nAMD. Of 25/63 (40%) studies evaluating quality of life (QoL) and using various tools, eight studies reported composite National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire scores following anti-VEGF treatment. Of these, seven reported a statistically significant improvement at the earliest time point measured (Month 3-12) and approximately 50% reported sustained QoL benefits at 12 months. In studies comparing the attributed or different regimens, the most important factor from the patient's perspective was the likelihood that a particular regimen would maintain vision. There was a preference towards treat and extend, which was associated with a perceived reduction in patient and caregiver burden, compared to fixed dosing. CONCLUSIONS: A coordinated holistic approach to patient care is key to optimizing patient well-being as well as visual outcomes. Further research regarding the patient-reported impact of nAMD management outside the trial setting (particularly international longitudinal studies) is warranted. Standardization of QoL studies would assist in establishing whether sustained QoL improvement, rather than prevention of QoL decline, should be a realistic expectation of treatment of nAMD in the longer term.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".