Table 5.
Intra-group and inter-group comparison of CMT during the treatment period
| Data set | Change in CMT (μm; mean ± SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visit 1 → Visit 5 | Visit 5 → Visit 14 | Visit 1 → Visit 14 | ||
| ITT | IVOM | −90.33 ± 114.65 (p = 0.046) | 20.43 ± 79.61 (p = 0.523) | − 104.86 ± 68.76 (p = 0.007) |
| IVOM+Laser | − 107.80 ± 56.24 (p < 0.001) | −16.70 ± 62.96 (p = 0.423) | − 124.50 ± 81.08 (p = 0.001) | |
| IVOM vs. IVOM+Laser | p = 0.673 | p = 0.299 | p = 0.609 | |
| PPS | IVOM | − 94.25 ± 77.47 (p = 0.093) | 29.00 ± 34.28 (p = 0.189) | −65.25 ± 67.57 (p = 0.149) |
| IVOM+aser | −99.13 ± 50.55 (p = 0.001) | −18.25 ± 71.21 (p = 0.492) | − 117.38 ± 82.71 (p = 0.005) | |
| IVOM vs. IVOM+Laser | p = 0.897 | p = 0.245 | p = 0.304 | |
ITT intent-to-treat set (all randomized subjects); PPS per-protocol set (subjects with complete data of primary and secondary target variables at the first and last visit, with no major protocol deviations); CMT central macular thickness;
Comparisons between groups were done using Student’s t-test for dependent samples.