Responses

PDF
Pegaptanib and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Treatments for macular degeneration: summarising evidence using network meta-analysis
    • Valeria Fadda, Research Assistant,
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dario Maratea, Sabrina Trippoli, Andrea Messori

    Treatments for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are lively being debated. One controversy is that all randomized controlled studies published thus far have used placebo or verteporfin in the control group [1,2]; hence, direct head-to-head comparisons between the newest active agents are lacking. The only randomised trial comparing ranibizumab vs bevacizumab (CATT study [3]) is still ongoing and its results are...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.