Table 6.

Summary of similarities and differences between studies

Studies	Similarities	Differences
BRVO
Ranibizumab vs. dex IVT: BRAVO [43] vs. GENEVA [18]	Design: double-blind	Patients failing to achieve sufficient improvement in BCVA could receive laser in BRAVO
	Date of study	Duration of macular oedema before study commencement: 3.3–3.7 months vs. 5.1–5.3 months across treatment groups for BRAVO and GENEVA, respectively
	Duration of follow-up:
	6 months
	Size
	Patient demographics
Ranibizumab vs. bevacizumab: BRAVO [43] vs. Moradian [49]	Design: double-blind	Patients failing to achieve sufficient improvement in BCVA could receive laser therapy in BRAVO
	Date of study	Size: 81 patients (Moradian) vs. 397 patients (BRAVO)
		Patient age: 58 years (Moradian) vs. 66 years (BRAVO)
		Duration of macular oedema at baseline: 6 weeks (Moradian) vs. 3.5 months (BRAVO)
		Duration of follow-up: 3 months (Moradian) vs. 6 months (BRAVO)
		BCVA endpoint: change in logMAR reported for Moradian
Ranibizumab vs. laser: BRAVO [43] vs. BVOS [6]	Patient demographics	Patients failing to achieve sufficient improvement in BCVA could receive laser therapy in BRAVO
	Size	Design: double-blinded for BRAVO but single-blinded for BVOS (patients were aware of their treatment)
		Duration of follow-up: 6 months vs. 36 months
Ranibizumab vs. laser: BRAVO [43] vs. Battaglia Parodi [45]	Patient demographics	Patients failing to achieve sufficient improvement in BCVA could receive laser in BRAVO
		Size: 77 patients (Battaglia Parodi) vs. 397 patients (BRAVO)
		Design: blinded for BRAVO but not reported for Battaglia Parodi
		Duration of follow-up: 24 months (Battaglia Parodi) vs. 6 months (BRAVO)
		Duration of BRVO: < 15 days for Battaglia Parodi vs. < 12 months for BRAVO (inclusion criterion)
CRVO
Ranibizumab vs. dex IVT: CRUISE [42] vs. GENEVA [18]	Design: double-blind	Duration of macular oedema before study commencement: 2.9–3.6 months vs. 5.1–5.3 months across treatment groups for CRUISE and GENEVA, respectively
	Date of study
	Duration of follow-up: 6 months	Baseline BCVA: 47.4–49.2 letters vs. 53.9–54.8 letters across treatment groups for CRUISE and GENEVA, respectively
	Size
	Patient demographics
Ranibizumab vs. laser: CRUISE [42] vs. CVOS [10]	Size	Design: blinded for CRUISE but single-blinded for CVOS (patients were aware of their treatment)
	Patient demographics	Duration of macular oedema at baseline: > 3 months for CVOS, < 12 months for CRUISE (inclusion criteria)
		Duration of follow-up: 36 months (CVOS) vs. 6 months (CRUISE)
Ranibizumab vs. laser: CRUISE [42] vs. Laatikainen [46]	Patient demographics	Size: 48 patients (Laatikainen) vs. 392 patients (CRUISE)
		Design: blinded for CRUISE but not Laatikainen
		Duration of follow-up: 12 months (Laatikainen) vs. 6 months (CRUISE)
		Duration of macular oedema at baseline: < 3 months for Laatikainen vs. < 12 months for CRUISE (inclusion criterion)
Ranibizumab vs. laser: CRUISE [42] vs. May [47]	Patient demographics	Size: 34 patients (May) vs. 392 patients (CRUISE)
		Design: blinded for CRUISE but not May
		Duration of follow-up: 24 months (May) vs. 6 months (CRUISE)
		CRVO duration at baseline: not specified for May vs. < 12 months for CRUISE (inclusion criterion)

BCVA, Best corrected visual acuity; BRAVO, Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema after BRAnch retinal Vein Occlusion: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety; BRVO, Branch retinal vein occlusion; BVOS, Branch retinal Vein Occlusion Study; CRUISE, Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Macular Edema after Central Retinal Vein OcclUsIon Study: Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety; CRVO, Central retinal vein occlusion; CVOS, Central retinal Vein Occlusion Study; Dex IVT, Dexamethasone intravitreal; GENEVA, Global EvaluatioN of implantable dExamethasone in retinal Vein occlusion with macular edemA; logMAR, Logarithm of minimum angle of resolution; NR, Not reported.