Evidence Hub

OphthoEvidence Report: Comparative effects of treatments for geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration: A protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

M. Ghadimi, Housne Begum, Dena Zeraatkar, Jin-Hui Ma, S. Sivaprasad, E. Borrelli, Peter K. Kaiser, David H. Steel et al.

PLoS ONE, 2026

Abstract

Background Geographic atrophy (GA), an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), leads to legal blindness in approximately 16% of affected individuals within 6 years. Numerous trials have evaluated interventions to slow GA progression, and many studies are ongoing. However, the comparative benefits and harms of treatments within this rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape have not yet been systematically synthesized. Objectives To present a protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the effects of available interventions for the management of GA. Methods We systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception for randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatment versus another, placebo, sham, or standard care in adults with unilateral or bilateral GA secondary to AMD. Paired reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data, and assess risk of bias. Outcomes of interest include best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), untransformed and square root-transformed total GA lesion area, vision-related quality of life, low luminance BCVA, reading speed, mean macular sensitivity, adverse events leading to discontinuation, macular neovascularization, need for rescue treatment, ischemic optic neuropathy, serious ocular adverse events, and serious non-ocular adverse events. For each outcome, if feasible, we will conduct frequentist…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free