Summary of findings for the main comparison. Radiotherapy versus control for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration.
| Radiotherapy versus control for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration Settings: Intervention: RADIATION THERAPY VERSUS CONTROL | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | RADIATION THERAPY VERSUS CONTROL | |||||
| Three or more lines visual acuity lost Follow‐up: 12 months | Medium risk population1 | RR 0.90 (0.74 to 1.1) | 759 (8 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | ||
| 544 per 1000 | 490 per 1000 (403 to 598) | |||||
| Three or more lines visual acuity lost Follow‐up: 24 months | Medium risk population1 | RR 0.81 (0.63 to 1.03) | 428 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3,4 | ||
| 757 per 1000 | 613 per 1000 (477 to 780) | |||||
| Six or more lines visual acuity lost Follow‐up: 12 months | Medium risk population1 | RR 0.62 (0.44 to 0.87) | 576 (7 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate5 | ||
| 342 per 1000 | 212 per 1000 (150 to 298) | |||||
| Six or more lines visual acuity lost Follow‐up: 24 months | Medium risk population1 | RR 0.81 (0.64 to 1.03) | 428 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | ||
| 444 per 1000 | 360 per 1000 (284 to 457) | |||||
| difference in visual acuity logMAR acuity. Scale from: ‐0.2 to 2. Follow‐up: 12 months | The mean difference in visual acuity in the intervention groups was 0.08 lower (0.14 to 0.01 lower) | 799 (8 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low6,7 | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Median control group risk in included studies 2 Serious limitations in design: only 3 of 8 trials adequately reported sequence generation and allocation concealment; in only 3 of 8 trials were participants and outcome assessors properly masked to treatment group; in none of the trials was incomplete outcome data properly assessed. 3 Serious limitations in design: 2 of the 4 trials adequately reported sequence generation and allocation concealment; in only 1 of the 4 trials were participants and outcome assessors properly masked to treatment group; in 1 of the 4 trials incomplete outcome data was properly assessed. 4 Serious inconsistency: chi‐sq for heterogeneity=0.04, I2=63%. Risk ratios ranged from 0.58 to 1.03. The confidence intervals for the trials showing most extreme effects overlapped to only a small extent. Too few trials to explore this heterogeneity. 5 Serious limitations in design: only 2 of 7 trials adequately reported sequence generation and allocation concealment; in only 2 of 7 trials were participants and outcome assessors properly masked to treatment group; in none of the trials was incomplete outcome data properly assessed. 6 Serious limitations in design: only 4 of 9 trials adequately reported sequence generation and allocation concealment; in only 4 of 9 trials were participants and outcome assessors properly masked to treatment group; in none of the trials was incomplete outcome data properly assessed. 7 Selective outcome bias a possibility for these analyses as only some trials reported mean final visual acuity and only some trials reported mean change in visual acuity since baseline.