Evidence Hub

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Jennifer I. Lim, Stella Ko, Mark McAllister, N. Faux, Komal Bawa, Elizabeth Mearns, Shriji Patel, Galin Spicer et al.

Eye, 2025

9 citations

Abstract

To assess geographically global clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) management. A systematic literature review (SLR) of CPGs for nAMD management was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases, Guideline Central, Health Technology Assessment bodies, professional ophthalmology associations, and backwards citation tracking. CPGs published between January 2010–October 2023 were included and independently assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). CPGs were qualitatively assessed for anatomical measurements (optical coherence tomography [OCT] and visual acuity [VA]). PROSPERO identification is CRD42023473223. Nine of 147 identified global CPGs were included in the SLR for diagnosis, treatment, and disease monitoring for nAMD. Overall AGREE II scores were 62–95 (mean [standard deviation] score 75 [10.6]). Strongest domains were Scope and Purpose (86.6 [11.0]), Clarity of Presentation (84.3 [13.0]), and Editorial Independence (89.1 [15.4]); Stakeholder Involvement (63.4 [16.6]), Applicability (73.0 [12.6]), and Rigor of Development (55.4 [25.9]) were lowest. 4/9 CPGs were “Recommended” by reviewers, and 5/9 were “Recommended with Modifications”. All CPGs recommended OCT for initial diagnosis. 2/9 CPGs did not mention VA. For managing pharmacological interventions, 4/9 CPGs recommended using VA, and three recommended OCT. Eight CPGs recommended using either VA or…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. 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