Comparison 1. RADIATION THERAPY VERSUS CONTROL.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Three or more lines visual acuity lost at 6 months	5	503	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.55, 1.03]
2 Three or more lines visual acuity lost at 12 months	8	759	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.74, 1.10]
3 Three or more lines visual acuity lost at 24 months	4	428	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.63, 1.03]
4 Six or more lines visual acuity lost at 6 months	5	502	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.41 [0.18, 0.94]
5 Six or more lines visual acuity lost at 12 months	7	576	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.44, 0.87]
6 Six or more lines visual acuity lost at 24 months	4	428	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.64, 1.03]
7 Mean and change in visual acuity at 12 months	10		Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.16, ‐0.04]
7.1 Mean visual acuity	5		Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐0.16 [‐0.30, ‐0.02]
7.2 Change in visual acuity	5		Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐0.08 [‐0.14, ‐0.01]
8 Investigating heterogeneity: type of CNV	8	759	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.61, 1.09]
8.1 Classic < 50%	5	426	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.62, 1.34]
8.2 Classic 50%+	3	333	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.45, 1.10]
9 Investigating heterogeneity: dosage	8	759	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.61, 1.09]
9.1 > 14 Gy	3	308	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.50, 1.25]
9.2 <= 14 Gy	5	451	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.56, 1.21]
10 Investigating heterogeneity: sham irradiation in control group	8	759	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.61, 1.09]
10.1 Control group observation only	5	419	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.49, 1.07]
10.2 Control group sham irradiation	3	340	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.60, 1.48]