Cho 2010.
| Methods | Study design: prospective, randomised, clinical trial of intravitreal bevacizumab and intravitreal triamcinolone as adjunctive treatments to PRP in diabetic retinopathy Unit of randomisation: eye Unit of analyses: eye Follow‐up: 1 day, 1 week, 1 and 3 months |
|
| Participants | Country: Korea Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea Number of participants: 76 (91 eyes) Exclusions post‐randomisation: 0 Losses to follow‐up: 0 Age (mean (SD)): 50.96 (46.0) years in bevacizumab group, 51.06 (26.0) years in triamcinolone group Gender: 55 men and 21 women Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 18 years, very severe non‐PDR to high‐risk PDR, Snellen BCVA of ≥ 3 Exclusion criteria: blood pressure > 180 mmHg (systolic) and > 110 mmHg (diastolic), glycated haemoglobin levels > 9.5%, chronic renal failure, major surgery within 1 month, or previous systemic steroids or anti‐VEGF treatment. Ocular conditions other than diabetic retinopathy (e.g. retinal vein occlusion, uveitis or other ocular inflammatory disease, neovascular glaucoma, etc.). History of treatment for diabetic macular oedema, PRP or focal/grid laser photocoagulation, or previous intraocular surgery, or uncontrolled glaucoma in the last 3 months |
|
| Interventions | Treatment group 1: intravitreal bevacizumab 1.25 mg/0.05 mL, 1 week before PRP Treatment group 2: intravitreal triamcinolone 4 mg/0.1 mL, 1 day after PRP Control: PRP Duration: only 1 dose |
|
| Outcomes | Primary: changes in BCVA and central macular thickness at 1 and 3 months Secondary: proportion of visual gain or loss, decreased or increased central macular thickness, adverse events |
|
| Notes | Funding: no financial interest of the authors Trial registration: not reported Date conducted: March 2007 to August 2008 Conflict of interest: none reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | There were no losses |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Comment: incomplete results of the principal variable were described in the methods section |