Menu
Search BMJ Group Search BMJ Group Journals Jobs Education Decision support Quality improvement Community BMJ Group
From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.
... by doctors, for doctors, for patients About BMJ Group Customer Service Subscriptions & Sales Working for BMJ Group BMJ Media Centre BMJ Group Awards Advertising & Sponsorship Rights & Licensing Affinity & Society Publishing Online learning BMJ Learning High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more Courses and Qualifications BMJ Masterclasses BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more Exam Preparation 
The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more BMJ Learning BMJ Portfolio BMJ Masterclasses Clinical Leadership Programme Diabetes Qualifications and Courses onExamination Decision support and clinical reference BMJ Evidence Centre The BMJ Evidence Centre builds evidence into practice, to support improvements in the consistency and quality of health care.
Best Practice Clinical Evidence Evidence Updates Best Health Action Sets
Informatica Systems Informatica Systems delivers performance management systems and innovative software solutions to primary care. Learn more Audit + Contract + Health Checks FrontDesk BMJ Quality 
The latest news, research, events, opinion and guidance related to quality and safety in health care.
The 2013 event will take place in London from 16th- 19th April 2013. Find out more BMJ Quality BMJ Quality and Safety International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare BMJ The flagship general medical journal, published since 1840, updated daily online, weekly in print and on the iPad.
BMJBMJ Journals BMJ Journals division publishes over 40 journals across a broad range of specialties.
BMJ JournalsstudentBMJ An international medical journal written for students by students.
Student BMJ JobsBMJ Careers BMJ Careers makes it easy for you to find the right job with the latest healthcare vacancies, upcoming careers fairs, advice on choosing the right specialty, pay and working conditions.
19-20 October 2012 at the Business Design Centre in Islington, London. Register here BMJ Careers Jobs and vacancies at BMJ Group BMJ Careers Fair Community 
Join the discussions on our community site doc2doc or our social pages
... by doctors, for doctors, for patientsWe are open for entries! doc2doc Follow BMJ Group on Twitter BMJ Group on Facebook BMJ Group Awards Subscribe My account
Update my details
Manage my emails
BMA Members Sign in Username: * Password: * Forgot your sign in details?BMA membersAthens or your organisation BMJ Helping doctors make better decisions Search bmj.com: Advanced search Home Research Education News Comment Multimedia Specialties Archive Search all BMJ research articles: From18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec To18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Limit by AllResearchMethods and reporting Our online table of contents is updated at least twice each day. Read all articles published in the last 7 days. You can use bmj.com to help you with your continuing medical education. Find out about CME/CPD credits for BMJ articles Keep up to date with cardiology: Access the latest cardiovascular medicine resources from across BMJ Group.OPEN ACCESS: All research articles are freely available online, with no word limit. Find out more about the BMJ's open access policy. Submit your paper. Find out how study types differ in our How to read a paper section. The truth about sports drinks: Find out more about the joint BMJ and BBC Panorama investigation into the evidence base behind many health claims. Research The relative clinical effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab in diabetic macular oedema: an indirect comparison in a systematic review BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5182 (Published 13 August 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e5182 Ophthalmology Diabetes Internet Metabolic disorders Article Related content Article metrics John A Ford, research assistant1, Andrew Elders, statistician1, Deepson Shyangdan, research fellow2, Pamela Royle, senior research fellow2, Norman Waugh, professor of public health medicine and health technology assessment21Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Building, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK2Warwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UKCorrespondence to: J A Ford john.ford{at}uea.ac.ukAccepted 16 July 2012AbstractObjective To indirectly compare the effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema.Design Systematic review and indirect comparison.Data sources Medline (1996–September 2011), Embase (1996–September 2011), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2011).Selection criteria for studies Randomised trials evaluating ranibizumab or bevacizumab in diabetic macular oedema with a common comparator and sufficient methodological similarity to be included within an indirect comparison were eligible for inclusion. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an improvement in best corrected visual acuity of more than two lines on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in best corrected visual acuity and in central macular thickness, and adverse events. Best corrected visual acuity was converted to logMAR units, a linear scale of visual acuity with positive values representing increasing visual loss. Indirect comparisons were done using Bayesian methods to estimate relative treatment effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab. Results Five randomised controlled trials with follow-up of 6–12 months and a common comparator (multiple laser treatment) were sufficiently similar to be included in the indirect comparison. Generally studies were small, resulting in wide credible intervals. The proportions of patients with an improvement in best corrected visual acuity of >2 lines were 21/77 participants (27%) for bevacizumab and 60/152 participants (39%) for ranibizumab (odds ratio 0.95 (95% credible interval 0.23 to 4.32)). The wide credible intervals cannot exclude a greater improvement, or worse outcome, for either drug. The mean change in best corrected visual acuity non-significantly favoured bevacizumab (treatment effect -0.08 logMAR units (-0.19 to 0.04)). The difference in mean change in central macular thickness was not statistically significant between ranibizumab and bevacizumab (treatment effect -6.9 µm (-88.5 to 65.4)).Conclusions Results suggest no difference in effectiveness between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, but the wide credible intervals cannot exclude the possibility that either drug might be superior. Sufficiently powered, direct head to head trials are needed.IntroductionDiabetic retinopathy is a major cause of visual loss and a leading cause of blindness.1 Diabetic macular oedema, a common complication of diabetic retinopathy, is caused by accumulation of excess extracellular fluid in the macula, disruption of the blood-retina barrier, and abnormal permeability, associated with increased levels of vascular endothelial growth factor.2 Visual impairment caused by macular oedema may be reversible in the early stages, but prolonged oedema causes irreversible damage.Laser photocoagulation has been the mainstay of treatment for diabetic macular oedema and is soundly evidence based.3 However, laser treatment mainly preserves vision rather than restoring it, and some patients do not respond.4 New treatments targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, such as ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and pegaptanib, have shown promise not only in preserving vision but also in improving it.5 6 7 8 These treatments have been widely used in age related macular degeneration, and their use in diabetic macular oedema is growing. Bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech/Roche) targets all isoforms of vascular endothelial growth factor and was developed to restrict vascular growth in the treatment of colorectal and other cancers. It has been widely used outside its licensed indication9 as an intravitreal treatment for macular oedema. Ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech/Roche) is a fragment of the same parent molecule as bevacizumab. It is considerably more expensive than bevacizumab (costs of £50–£105 for bevacizumab v £742 for ranibizumab). The cost of ranibizumab to the UK National Health Service is lower because of a patient access scheme that is currently confidential. In a previous study of classic age related macular degeneration, it was estimated that ranibizumab would have to be 40% more effective at preventing visual loss than bevacizumab to justify the marginal costs and achieve no more than £30?000 per quality adjusted life year.10 Pegaptanib (Macugen, Eyetech Pharmaceuticals/Pfizer) is a PEGylated aptamer, with a high affinity to vascular endothelial growth factor 165 and was licensed for the treatment of exudative age related macular degeneration in 2004 but was not approved by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).11There have been no trials directly comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema, although one is under way in Austria.12 NICE has recently carried out a technology appraisal of ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema. Ranibizumab, even with the patient access scheme, was not found to be cost effective compared with laser photocoagulation.13 The decision was appealed by Novartis, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Ophthalmologists, and jointly from four patient groups. NICE rejected these appeals in November 2011.14Our aim was to compare the clinical effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab as measured by best corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness in diabetic macular oedema.MethodsLiterature searchA literature search was performed to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating bevacizumab or ranibizumab in treating diabetic macular oedema. We searched Medline (1996–September 2011), Embase (1996–September 2011), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (issue 4, 2011). There were no language restrictions. The flow of studies is shown in fig 1?.
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 1 Selection of studies for systematic review and meta-analysisThe search terms for Medline were:1. (ranibizumab or lucentis or bevacizumab or avastin).tw.2. randomized controlled trial.pt.3. controlled clinical trial.pt.4. (randomly or randomised or randomized).tw.5. 2 or 3 or 46. 1 and 57. (diabet* adj2 macular adj2 (edema or oedema)).tw.8. diabetic maculopathy.tw.9. 7 or 810. 6 and 9These terms were adapted as appropriate for the other databases (for full details of the literature searches, see appendix 1 in the linked data supplement on bmj.com).In addition, searches of clinicaltrials.gov and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were done for unpublished studies. One trial comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab for diabetic macular oedema was identified.12 The authors were contacted, and we were informed that the study was currently recruiting participants. We also searched meeting abstracts—including those of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Diabetes Association, and European Association for the Study of Diabetes—from 2002 to November 2011. No new studies were found.To meet the inclusion criteria, studies were required to be randomised, include patients with diabetic macular oedema, evaluate ranibizumab or bevacizumab in one intervention arm, and measure best corrected visual acuity. We excluded trials in which one or more arms was undergoing surgical procedures such as cataract removal. Article titles were screened for eligibility by two reviewers, and abstracts or full texts were reviewed as necessary.Studies were assessed for common comparators. A common comparator is a study arm that is similar in more than one trial and can therefore be used to connect trials. Using common comparators, we created several networks. Studies selected for potential inclusion in the network were assessed for similarity in four criteria: baseline patient population, administration and frequency of common comparator, outcomes assessment, and length of follow-up. Only one network was found to be methodologically suitable after assessing for similarity. The common comparator linking intervention arms was multiple laser photocoagulation. Bevacizumab 1.25 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg were included in the network, along with laser therapy. Other doses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab were considered, but the aforementioned doses were chosen as they are used in clinical practice.Data extractionData from suitable trials were extracted by one author and checked by a second (JAF and DS). The two authors agreed, so it was not necessary to involve a third adjudicating author. Data extracted included study details, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline patient characteristics, dose, follow-up, change in best corrected visual acuity, and change in central macular thickness. In the event that salient data (such as standard deviations) were missing, study authors were contacted. Potential for bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with an improvement in best corrected visual acuity of more than two lines (or 10 letters) on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale. Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline in best corrected visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR)), mean change from baseline in central macular thickness and adverse events. Best corrected visual acuity data was converted to logMAR units, a linear scale of visual acuity with positive values representing increasing visual loss. Reporting of results follows preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines.15Statistical analysesAfter data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, we carried out meta-analyses of the available direct evidence for each outcome, pooling pairwise comparisons between laser and either bevacizumab or ranibizumab using Review Manager software. The results were used for descriptive purposes and also for assessing heterogeneity and potential inconsistency with the indirect evidence.An indirect comparison of bevacizumab 1.25 mg alone versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg alone was then performed for each outcome using WinBUGS Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo software.16 This involved taking direct evidence from published reports of trials that had compared either bevacizumab or ranibizumab with laser therapy (the common comparator) and entering the data into a simulation model to estimate the distribution of treatment effects that would be expected if a large number of head to head trials were to be conducted. Applying methods described by Lu and Ades17 and Dias,18 we estimated a treatment effect to be the median value from the posterior distribution of odds ratios generated from a random effects simulation model, assuming a level of between-study heterogeneity observable in the available data. In each analysis, two Markov chains were used with 20?000 iterations (following a “burn-in” of 10?000 iterations). We derived 95% credible intervals from the 2.5 and 97.5 centiles of the posterior distributions. If a 95% credible interval crossed the line of no effect (that is, it included a value of 1 for odds ratios or 0 for differences in means), then the result was interpreted as being non- significant.Assumptions relating to heterogeneity and consistency were assessed using methods described by Song et al.19 Differences in follow-up periods between studies were addressed in the analysis of the proportion of patients with improved vision, by fitting a binomial likelihood model with a complementary log-log link function which treated study length as an additional rate parameter.18 Normal likelihood models with identity link functions were used in the comparisons of best corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness to calculate mean differences between interventions.Secondary analyses compared bevacizumab alone with ranibizumab plus prompt laser or ranibizumab plus deferred laser. These analyses were conducted using the same methods as the primary analyses, with the exception that a logit link function was used in the proportion models because follow-up was similar.Our initial aim was to include a comparison of each anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drug alone and in combination with laser. However, the included studies allowed comparison of only bevacizumab alone, ranibizumab alone, and ranibizumab plus laser. There was no direct evidence that compared bevacizumab plus laser with any comparator, so it could not be included in the analysis.ResultsLiterature searchThe results of the literature search are shown in fig 1?. Details of the included studies20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 are shown in table 1?, and details of the excluded studies30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 are given in appendix 2 of the data supplement. Only five trials (reported in 10 published articles) were sufficiently homogenous with a common comparator to be included in the indirect comparison. Methodological heterogeneity was caused by either different sample populations (such as patients with previous failed laser therapy37) or different treatments (such as post-cataract surgery42 45 or quantity of laser treatments39 40). Nine studies could not be fitted into the network diagram because of a lack of common comparator.37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 1 Characteristics of studies included in review of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedemaThe final network diagram is shown in fig 2?. Two studies compared bevacizumab with laser therapy,20 23 two studies compared ranibizumab with laser therapy,25 26 and one study compared ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser therapy with laser therapy.29 Follow-up in three studies was 12 months, and in two studies was six months. Best corrected visual acuity was the primary outcome in all five studies. Tables 2? and 3? show the results from each included study for our primary and secondary outcomes. Table 4? shows the results of separate meta-analyses before indirect comparison. The assumption of heterogeneity was shown to be appropriate in the posterior distribution, and no inconsistency was observed with the methods described by Song et al.47
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 2 Network diagram showing the different treatments with ranibizumab or bevacizumab for diabetic macular oedema compared with multiple laser therapyView this table:View PopupView InlineTable 2 Primary results from studies included in review of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema: improvement in best corrected visual acuity of >2 lines on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scaleView this table:View PopupView InlineTable 3 Secondary results from studies included in review of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema: mean changes in best corrected visual acuity and in central macular thicknessView this table:View PopupView InlineTable 4 Summary of pooled estimates of treatment effect of ranibizumab and bevacizumab compared with laser therapy from studies included in review for treatment of diabetic macular oedema Quality of studiesAll studies included were of good quality (table 5?). Sequence generation was appropriate in all studies except in the READ-2 study,26 where the method was unclear. Allocation concealment was described in only one study,23 In the other four studies it was unclear. Three studies were appropriately masked,23 25 26 the remaining two20 28 were not because of the impracticality of masking patients to laser photocoagulation. Only one study failed to address incomplete data outcomes.25 Four studies used an intention to treat method. In one study a per protocol method was used.23 All studies were judged to be of low risk of bias from selective reporting because it was clear from the published articles that all main pre-specified outcomes were reported.View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 5 Risk of bias in the studies included in review of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedemaBest corrected visual acuityAs shown in table 6?, the proportion of patients with an improvement of more than two lines on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale seemed comparable in both the bevacizumab and ranibizumab groups (odds ratio 0.95 (95% credible interval 0.23 to 4.32)). The differences between bevacizumab and ranibizumab with prompt or deferred laser seemed to favour the bevacizumab group but were also statistically non-significant (prompt laser addition odds ratio 0.80 (0.19 to 3.11), deferred laser addition odds ratio 0.61 (0.12 to 2.84)). However, wide credible intervals cannot exclude the possibility that one drug is superior.View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 6 Indirect comparisons of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema: proportion with improvement of >2 lines on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scaleAs shown in table 7?, the mean change in best corrected visual acuity seemed to favour bevacizumab, but again this was not statistically significant (treatment effect -0.08 logMAR units (-0.19 to 0.04)), so superiority for either drug cannot be excluded. The addition of laser did not provide additional benefit to the ranibizumab group (prompt laser addition -0.10 units (-0.22 to 0.00), deferred laser addition treatment effect -0.10 (-0.23 to 0.03)).View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 7 Indirect comparisons of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema: mean changes in best corrected visual acuity (logMAR)Central macular thicknessSimilarly, table 8? shows that there was no statistically significant difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab for mean change in central macular thickness. The difference in central macular thickness seemed greater in the bevacizumab group compared with ranibizumab alone (treatment effect -6.9 µm (-88.5 to 65.4)), but not with the addition of laser. However, none of these results was statistically significant, and the wide credible intervals cannot exclude a greater improvement, or worse outcome, for either drug.View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 8 Indirect comparisons of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema: mean changes central macular thickness (µm)Adverse eventsAssessment of adverse events shows no consistent increase in adverse events in either group (table 9?). The DRCRN 2010 trial,28 the trial with the longest follow-up, reported more cardiovascular events in the sham injection plus laser therapy group than in the ranibizumab group (11.5% v 5.1%). In a two year retrospective study of bevacizumab, hypertension was slightly more prevalent in the ranibizumab and bevacizumab arms in the DRCRN 201028 and BOLT studies.21 However, hypertension was more common in the control arm in the DRCRN 2007 study.39 Endophthalmitis was a rare adverse event but was slightly more common in the intervention arms, apart from in the DRCRN 2010 trial,28 where endophthalmitis was more common in the control arm.View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 9 Adverse events in randomised controlled trials and large observational studies of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedemaDiscussionPrincipal findingsThis is the first study to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for treatment of diabetic macular oedema in an indirect comparison. Indirect comparisons are subject to potential biases and should be interpreted with caution. There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between bevacizumab and ranibizumab when measured by proportion of patients who improved by more than two lines on the ETDRS scale, mean change in best corrected visual acuity measured in logMAR units, or mean change in central macular thickness. Included studies were of low statistical power because of small numbers of participants. This coupled with moderate heterogeneity between studies resulted in wide credible intervals around estimates of treatment effects.Strength and limitations of studyThere are strengths and weaknesses of indirect comparisons.63 In the absence of head to head trials, an indirect comparison is the best we can do to estimate the treatment effect between two interventions, albeit with greater uncertainty than in direct head to head randomised controlled trials.63The need for a common comparator and similarity in design resulted in 12 trials being excluded from the indirect comparison. In any meta-analysis there is a trade-off between reducing heterogeneity between studies and including enough studies to be able to draw meaningful conclusions. We excluded all studies that were not similar. This resulted in a more robust network but fewer trials. This can result in reduced precision in indirect comparisons. Additional studies could have been added, but this would have increased heterogeneity, and we felt this would have compromised the validity of our results.There were differences between study populations. Three ranibizumab trials included patients who had either been treated or not treated previously with laser therapy.25 26 28 One bevacizumab trial21 included patients who had been treated previously with laser therapy, and the other bevacizumab trial23 included patients who were laser naïve. By pooling the last two trials, a group of laser experienced and laser naïve patients was created. In addition, studies differed in the management of patients with two eligible eyes. The Soheilian study21 included both eyes: BOLT,20 RESTORE,25 and READ-226 studies included the worse eye; and DRCRN28 randomised both eyes, ensuring one eye was assigned to the control group. Further minor differences were the size of population, the length of follow-up in each trial, and the use of sham injections. Follow-up varied between six and 12 months. Three studies used sham injections alongside laser, whereas two studies used laser alone (see table 1?).Assessment of the indirect comparison models showed that they were all suitable. Diagnostics, including inspection of Brooks-Gelman plots, indicated appropriate convergence and low levels of autocorrelation. Residual deviance statistics indicated that the models fitted well. Heterogeneity was observed in some of the pairwise meta-analyses, and so moderate heterogeneity was assumed in the indirect comparisons. The posterior distributions for between study variance indicated that this heterogeneity assumption was reasonable. The importance of checking for consistency between direct and indirect evidence in indirect comparisons has also been highlighted by a recent review, which indicated that inconsistency may be more common than previously observed.64 However, for all outcomes in the study, there was no statistically significant inconsistency between the indirect estimates and the available direct evidence.It could be argued that the number of patients treated with bevacizumab was insufficient to provide safety data. However, a survey reported by Fung et al65 presented data on 7113 injections in 5228 patients from 70 centres in 12 different countries. The commonest adverse events were rare and included corneal abrasion (0.15%), mild ocular discomfort (0.14%), inflammation or uveitis (0.14%), and blood pressure increase (0.21%). The authors concluded that bevacizumab was not associated with an increase in adverse events.Comparison with other studiesThere are currently no randomised studies comparing bevacizumab and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. However, three randomised controlled trials comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab in age related macular degeneration have recently been published.66 67 68 These found similar efficacy with ranibizumab and bevacizumab. The CATT trial67 reported more systemic adverse events in the bevacizumab group (risk ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.66)). The IVAN trial (n=610) found a lower incidence of heart failure or arteriothrombolic events in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 0.23 (0.05 to 1.07), P=0.03) and no difference in serious adverse events (odd ratio 1.35 (0.80 to 2.27), P=0.25).68Campbell et al conducted a population based nested case-control study of 91?378 older adults with a history of physician diagnosed retinal disease.69 The authors found that neither ranibizumab nor bevacizumab was associated with significant risks of ischaemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or venous thromboembolism. In an observational study, Ladas et al70 retrospectively compared 450 patients with diabetic macular oedema who received either bevacizumab or ranibizumab (1275 injections and 725 injections respectively) and found no difference in ocular or non-ocular events.Meaning of the resultsCaution is needed when interpreting the results since the small number of studies resulted in wide credible intervals and reduced precision. Our results indicate no difference in effectiveness between ranibizumab and bevacizumab. The number of patients found to have a gain of two or more lines on the ETDRS scale was similar with bevacizumab and with ranibizumab. Mean change in best corrected visual acuity non-significantly favoured bevacizumab.Assessment of adverse events shows similar incidences between drugs. Bevacizumab has been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular events when used systemically in colorectal cancer.71 72 However, far smaller doses are used intraocularly, and little reaches the systemic circulation. Cardiovascular disease is of particular importance in diabetes. However, it has been suggested that among patients treated with ranibizumab for age related macular degeneration, those with diabetes are at no higher risk than others.73 In a two year retrospective study of bevacizumab treatment for diabetic macular oedema, Arevalo et al30 found the rate of cardiovascular events to be only 1.7%. Although cardiovascular events do not appear to be increased with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs, large scale safety studies are still needed. It should also be noted that most trials exclude patients with recent cardiovascular events. Endophthalmitis secondary to anti- vascular endothelial growth factor treatment is a rare event, as shown in table 9?.The anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs represent a significant advance in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. The implication of this comparison for policy makers and clinicians is that there is no evidence from which to infer superiority of ranibizumab over bevacizumab in diabetic macular oedema, and therefore it is unlikely that ranibizumab would be cost effective compared with bevacizumab. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) concluded that ranibizumab was not cost effective compared with laser therapy.74 It is likely that bevacizumab would be cost effective compared with laser. However, since bevacizumab is not licensed for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema and there is a licensed alternative (ranibizumab), General Medical Council guidance would not recommend the use of bevacizumab.75 Clinicians and policy makers face a dilemma of using an unlicensed but clinically effective and probably cost effective treatment compared with an expensive alternative with similar outcomes. If the second option is chosen, the extra cost to the National Health Service in England alone may be in the order of £400m ($630m, €510m), which would be taken away from other groups of patients.76We recommend that there should be an independent, head to head trial of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treating diabetic macular oedema. This should be long enough to answer questions about the duration of treatment and should examine the place of laser therapy in the treatment pathway.What is already known on this topicThe anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs ranibizumab and bevacizumab have been shown to be effective in the treatment of diabetic macular oedemaNo head to head trial has been done, so their relative effectiveness is not knownWhat this study addsThis indirect comparison has found no evidence to suggest a difference in effectiveness between bevacizumab and ranibizumabHowever, wide credible intervals cannot exclude a greater improvement, or worse outcome, for either drugNotesCite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e5182FootnotesWe thank the study authors who provided additional information: Wen Xing, Catey Bunce, and Michel Michaelides for the BOLT study; Peter Campochiaro and Afsheen Khwaja for READ-2; Mehdi Yaseri and Masoud Soheilian for Soheilian et al. We also thank Graeme MacLennan, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, for his statistical advice.Contributors: All authors contributed to the design, interpretation, and writing of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. PR carried out the searches. JAF, DS, and PR screened titles and extracted data. AE carried out the indirect comparison. JAF is the guarantor. All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.Funding: No external funding required.All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: the authors had support from University of Aberdeen and Warwick University for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; JAF, DS, PR and NW have undertaken an Evidence Review Group report for NICE on ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema, which may be relevant to the submitted work.Ethical approval: Not requiredProtocol: No protocol exists for this study. The study arose out of a single technology appraisal for NICE.Data sharing: Further details available in the ERG report on the NICE website (www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13125/53408/53408.pdf).This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.References?Williams R, Airey M, Baxter H, Forrester J, Kennedy-Martin T, Girach A. Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema: a systematic review. Eye (Lond)2004;18:963-83.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Caldwell RB, Bartoli M, Behzadian MA, El-Remessy AE, Al-Shabrawey M, Platt DH, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor and diabetic retinopathy: pathophysiological mechanisms and treatment perspectives. Diabetes Metab Res Rev2003;19:442-55.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group. Arch Ophthalmol1985;103:1796-806.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lee CM, Olk RJ. Modified grid laser photocoagulation for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Long term visual results. Ophthalmology1991;98:1594-604OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Simo R, Hernandez C. Intravitreous anti-VEGF for diabetic retinopathy: hopes and fears for a new therapeutic strategy. Diabetologia2008;51:1574-80.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Parravano M, Oddone F, Tedeschi M, Schiano LD, Chiaravalloti A, Ripandelli G, et al. Retinal functional changes measured by microperimetry in neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients treated with ranibizumab. Retina2009;29:329-34.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Goyal S, Lavalley M, Subramanian ML. Meta-analysis and review on the effect of bevacizumab in diabetic macular edema. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2010;249:15-27.OpenUrlMedline?Yilmaz T, Cordero-Coma M, Gallagher MJ, Teasley LA. Systematic review of intravitreal bevacizumab injection for treatment of primary diabetic macular oedema. Acta Ophthalmol2011;89:709-17.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?McCartney M. Off-label prescribing in macular degeneration. BMJ 201:343:d6778.?Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, Tan SC, Lotery A. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol2007;91:1244-6.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: NICE technology appraisal guidance 155. 2008. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA155.?Medical University of Vienna. Bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for diabetic retinopathy. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00545870?term=NCT00545870&rank=1. ?National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. NICE technology appraisal guidance TA237. 2011. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA237. ?National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema; appeal decision. NICE technology appraisal guidance TZ237. 2011. www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13125/57323/57323.pdf.?Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Goetzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2009;6:e1000100.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Computing2000;10:325-37.OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science?Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med2004;23:3105-24.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ. Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 2011. www.nicedsu.org.uk.?Song F, Loke Y, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ2009;338:b1147.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Michaelides M, Fraser-Bell S, Hamilton R, Kaines A, Egan C, Bunce C, et al. Macular perfusion determined by fundus fluorescein angiography at the 4-month time point in a prospective randomized trial of intravitreal bevacizumab or laser therapy in the management of diabetic macular edema (Bolt study): report 1. Retina2010;30:781-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Michaelides M, Kaines A, Hamilton RD, Fraser-Bell S, Rajendram R, Quhill F, et al. A prospective randomized trial of intravitreal bevacizumab or laser therapy in the management of diabetic macular edema (BOLT study) 12-month data: report 2. Ophthalmology2010;117:1078-86.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Soheilian M, Ramezani A, Bijanzadeh B, Yaseri M, Ahmadieh H, Dehghan MH, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab (avastin) injection alone or combined with triamcinolone versus macular photocoagulation as primary treatment of diabetic macular edema. Retina2007;27:1187-95.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Soheilian M, Ramezani A, Obudi A, Bijanzadeh B, Salehipour M, Yaseri M, et al. Randomized trial of intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with triamcinolone versus macular photocoagulation in diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology2009;116:1142-50.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Soheilian M, Ramezani A, Yaseri M, Mirdehghan SA, Obudi A, Bijanzadeh B. Initial macular thickness and response to treatment in diabetic macular edema. Retina2011;31:1564-73.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Mitchell P, Bandello F, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Lang GE, Massin P, Schlingemann RO, et al. The RESTORE study: ranibizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology2011;118:615-25.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nguyen QD, Shah SM, Heier JS, Do DV, Lim J, Boyer D, et al. Primary end point (six months) results of the Ranibizumab for Edema of the mAcula in Diabetes (READ-2) study. Ophthalmology2009;116:2175-81.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nguyen QD, Shah SM, Khwaja AA, Channa R, Hatef E, Do DV, et al. Two-year outcomes of the Ranibizumab for Edema of the mAcula in Diabetes (READ-2) study. Ophthalmology2010;117:2146-51.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, Elman MJ, Aiello LP, Beck RW, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, et al. Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology2010;117:1064-77.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Elman MJ, Bressler NM, Qin H, Beck RW, Ferris FL III, Friedman SM, et al. Expanded 2-year follow-up of ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology2011;118:609-14.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Arevalo JF, Fromow-Guerra J, Quiroz-Mercado H, Sanchez JG, Wu L, Maia M, et al. Primary intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) for diabetic macular edema: results from the Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study Group at 6-month follow-up. Ophthalmology2007;114:743-50.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Googe J, Brucker AJ, Bressler NM, Qin H, Aiello LP, Antoszyk A, et al. Randomized trial evaluating short-term effects of intravitreal ranibizumab or triamcinolone acetonide on macular edema after focal/grid laser for diabetic macular edema in eyes also receiving panretinal photocoagulation. Retina2011;31:1009-27.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Kohly RP, Muni RH, Kertes PJ. Randomized trial evaluating ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred laser or triamcinolone plus prompt laser for diabetic macular EDEMA. Evidence-Based Ophthalmology2010;11:199-201.OpenUrl?Seo JW, Park IW. Intravitreal bevacizumab for treatment of diabetic macular edema. Korean J Ophthalmol2009;23:17-22.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Sheth S, Rush R, Natarajan S, Gillies M. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide versus combined intravitreal bevacizumab and dexamethasone in diffuse diabetic macular oedema. Clin Experimental Ophthalmol2011;39:673-81.OpenUrlCrossRef?Solaiman KA, Diab MM, Abo-Elenin M. Intravitreal bevacizumab and/or macular photocoagulation as a primary treatment for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Retina2010;30:1638-45.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Wang Y-S, Li X, Wang H-Y, Zhang Z-F, Li M-H, Su X-N. Intravitreal bevacizumab combined with/without triamcinolone acetonide in single injection for treatment of diabetic macular edema. Chin Med J2011;124:352-8.OpenUrlMedline?Ahmadieh H, Ramezani A, Shoeibi N, Bijanzadeh B, Tabatabaei A, Azarmina M,et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab with or without triamcinolone for refractory diabetic macular edema; a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Experimental Ophthalmol2008;246:483-9.OpenUrlCrossRef?Cheema RA, Al-Mubarak MM, Amin YM, Cheema MA. Role of combined cataract surgery and intravitreal bevacizumab injection in preventing progression of diabetic retinopathy: prospective randomized study. J Cataract Refractive Surg2009;35:18-25.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, Scott IU, Edwards AR, Beck RW, Bressler NM, Chan CK,et al. A phase II randomized clinical trial of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology2007;114:1860-7.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Faghihi H, Roohipoor R, Mohammadi SF, Hojat-Jalali K, Mirshahi A, Lashay A,et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab versus combined bevacizumab-triamcinolone versus macular laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular edema. Eur J Ophthalmol2008;18:941-8.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Lam DS, Lai TY, Lee VY, Chan CK, Liu DT, Mohamed S,et al. Efficacy of 1.25 mg versus 2.5 mg intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema: six-month results of a randomized controlled trial. Retina2009;29:292-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Lanzagorta-Aresti A, Palacios-Pozo E, Menezo Rozalen JL, Navea-Tejerina A. Prevention of vision loss after cataract surgery in diabetic macular edema with intravitreal bevacizumab: a pilot study. Retina2009;29:530-5.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Paccola L, Costa RA, Folgosa MS, Barbosa JC, Scott IU, Jorge R. Intravitreal triamcinolone versus bevacizumab for treatment of refractory diabetic macular oedema (IBEME study). Br J Ophthalmol2008;92:76-80.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Massin P, Bandello F, Garweg JG, Hansen LL, Harding SP, Larsen M,et al. Safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema (RESOLVE study): a 12-month, randomized, controlled, double-masked, multicenter phase II study. Diabetes Care2010;33:2399-405.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Takamura Y, Kubo E, Akagi Y. Analysis of the effect of intravitreal bevacizumab injection on diabetic macular edema after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology2009;116:1151-7.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Abu El-Asrar AM, Al-Mezaine HS, Ola MS. Changing paradigms in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol2009;20:532-8.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Boscia F. Current approaches to the management of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema. Drugs2010;70:2171-200.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Ciulla TA, Rosenfeld PJ. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for neovascular ocular diseases other than age-related macular degeneration. Curr Opin Ophthalmol2009;20:166-74.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Fard MA, Yazdanei AA, Malihi M. Prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema (thickening) after cataract surgery: prospective randomized study. Eur J Ophthalmol2011;21:276-81.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Guthoff R, Schrader W, Hennemann K, Meigen T, Gobel W. Prognostic factors for visual outcome after intravitreal drug therapy for chronic diabetic macular oedema. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde2011;228:468-72.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Hernandez-Da Mota SE, Chacon-Lara A, Hernandez-Vazquez E. Use of triamcinolone and bevacizumab in 25G phaco-vitrectomy surgery for the treatment of cataract and diabetic macular edema. Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia2008;83:293-300.OpenUrlMedline?Karim R, Tang B. Use of antivascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol2010;4:493-517.OpenUrlMedline?Kubicka-Trzaska A. Intravitreal ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema. Klinika Oczna2010;112:333-6.OpenUrlMedline?Meyer CH. Current treatment approaches in diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmologica2007;221:118-31.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Mohamed Q, Gillies MC, Wong TY. Management of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc2007;298:902-16.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nguyen QD, Tatlipinar S, Shah SM, Haller JA, Quinlan E, Sung J,et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a critical stimulus for diabetic macular edema. Am J Ophthalmol2006;142:961-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Ozkiris A. Pattern electroretinogram changes after intravitreal bevacizumab injection for diabetic macular edema. Documenta Ophthalmologica2010;120:243-50.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Parravano M, Menchini F, Virgili G. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor modalities for diabetic macular oedema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD007419.OpenUrlMedline?Schwartz SG, Flynn J, Scott IU. Emerging therapies for diabetic macular edema. Expert Rev Ophthalmol2009;4:163-71.OpenUrlCrossRef?Schwartz SG, Flynn J, Scott IU. Pharmacotherapy for diabetic retinopathy. Expert Opin Pharmacother2009;10:1123-31.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Scott IU, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Browning DJ, Chan CK, Danis RP,et al. Agreement between clinician and reading center gradings of diabetic retinopathy severity level at baseline in a phase 2 study of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema. Retina2008;28:36-40.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Waisbourd M, Goldstein M, Loewenstein A. Treatment of diabetic retinopathy with anti-VEGF drugs. Acta Opthalmologica2011;89:203-7.OpenUrlCrossRef?Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico R, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess2005;9:1-134.OpenUrlMedline?Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, et al. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2011;343:d4909.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Fung AE, Rosenfeld PJ, Reichel E. The International Intravitreal Bevacizumab Safety Survey: using the internet to assess drug safety worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol2006;90:1344-9.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Biswas P, Sengupta S, Choudhary R, Home S, Paul A, Sinha S. Comparative role of intravitreal ranibizumab versus bevacizumab in choroidal neovascular membrane in age-related macular degeneration. Indian J Ophthalmol2011;59:191-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?The CATT Research Group. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med2011;364:1897-908.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Wordsworth S, et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN Randomized Trial. Ophthalmology2012;119:1399-411.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Campbell RJ, Gill SS, Bronskill SE, Paterson JM, Whitehead M, Bell CM. Adverse events with intravitreal injection of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: nested case-control study. BMJ2012;345:e4203.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Ladas ID, Karagiannis DA, Rouvas AA, Kotsolis AI, Liotsou A, Vergados I. Safety of repeat intravitreal injections of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab: our experience after 2,000 injections. Retina2009;29:313-8.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Kamba T, McDonald DM. Mechanisms of adverse effects of anti-VEGF therapy for cancer. Br J Cancer2007;96:1788-95.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Hurwitz H, Saini S. Bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: safety profile and management of adverse events. Semin Oncol2006;33:S26-34.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lanzetta P, Burian G, Weichselberger A, Hashad Y. Safety profiles of diabetic versus non-diabetic AMD patients in randomized controlled clinical studies with ranibizumab. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2010;51:91.OpenUrl?National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Macular oedema (diabetic)—ranibizumab: appraisal consultation document. 2011. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA/Wave23/30/Consultation/DraftGuidance.?General Medical Council. Good medical practice. 2006. www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice.asp.?Cummins E, Lois N, Waugh N. ERG comments on the Novartis responses to the ACD on ranibizumab for diabetic macular oedema. 2011. www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13125/55338/55338.pdf. Open access PDFEasy ReadData supplementRespond to this article Tweet Services Email to friendDownload to citation managerAdd article to BMJ portfolioRequest permission Citations Find similar articles in PubMedArticles by John A FordArticles by Andrew EldersArticles by Deepson ShyangdanArticles by Pamela RoyleArticles by Norman WaughCiting articles via Web of ScienceCiting articles via Scopus Social bookmarking 
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Twitter
Stumbleupon Latest jobsUK jobsInternational jobsUK jobs AXESS LTD, EU MEDICAL ADVISER. (23 Aug 2012)SOLENT NHS TRUST SPECIALTY DOCTOR COMMUNITY SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE (23 Aug 2012)Sessional roles for Doctors Scotland: (23 Aug 2012)UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL SENIOR LECTURER (CLINICAL) IN NEONATOLOGY (23 Aug 2012) show me all jobs >> International jobs DOCTORS - ENJOY THE GREAT LIFESTYLE in Australia and New Zealand. SHO/ Registrar/ Consultant and GP openings. (6 Jul 2012)International Medical Recruitment - Medical Jobs in Australia and New Zealand (24 Aug 2012)Saudi Arabia - UAE - Kuwait On behalf of clients Shamco International Recruitment would like to invite applicants for various positions (24 Aug 2012)The Eureka Medical and Bougainvillea Clinic Consultants in General Internal Medicine and Paediatrics required in the British Virgin Islands (23 Aug 2012) show me all jobs >> Rapid responses Latest ResponsesMost responsesLatest Responses Re: Roy Simpson Published 24 August 2012 Why corporate power is a public health priority Published 24 August 2012 Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Pregnancy Management Published 24 August 2012 Incentives Published 24 August 2012 Re: Unhappy pills Published 24 August 2012 more Most responses Unhappy pills (11 responses) Published 10 August 2012
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): risky and costly (8 responses)Published 31 July 2012
We should not let families stop organ donation from their dead relatives (8 responses)Published 7 August 2012
Diagnosis and management of cellulitis (8 responses)Published 7 August 2012
Association between psychological distress and mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies (7 responses)Published 31 July 2012
more THIS WEEK'S POLLRead related article
See previous polls
Recent blogs and podcastsBlogsPodcastsBlogs Domhnall MacAuley: Santa Claus and Lance Armstrong (24 Aug 2012)Tiago Villanueva: Does it matter where you do your medical training? (23 Aug 2012)James Drife: Doctors on the Fringe (22 Aug 2012)Steve Yentis: Infamous names in anaesthesia—part two (21 Aug 2012)Tessa Richards: Personal information empowers and its shift to the people makes sense (20 Aug 2012) more >> Podcasts Ecological public health (24 Aug 2012)Fighting the food giants (17 Aug 2012)Is the drug pipeline really drying up? (10 Aug 2012)Renal patient records (3 Aug 2012)Shift workers' health and assessing risk of violence (27 Jul 2012) more >> BMJ most popular Most sharedMost searchedMost shared Sample size calculations: should the emperor’s clothes be off the peg or made to measure? (804 views)The truth about sports drinks (696 views)When financial incentives do more good than harm: a checklist (650 views)Cochrane review finds no proved benefit in drug treatment for patients with mild hypertension (598 views)Myalgia while taking statins (589 views) Most searched Kathleen Hilditchguyattchronic liver diseasehow to read a paperFrance Follow BMJ Ontwitter.com/bmj_latestfacebook.com/bmjdotcomyoutube.com/user/BMJmedia Content Links Last 7 daysResearchEducationNewsCommentArchiveBlogsVideoPrint Issue My Account Email alertsActivate subscription Resources AuthorsReviewersBMA membersReadersSubscribersAdvertisers and sponsorsMedia Information Contact usFeedback BMJ About usEditorial staffAdvisersPoliciesComplaintsPartnershipsSubmit your paper Explore BMJ About BMJ GroupJunior Doctors: Agents for ChangeOlympics portalStudent BMJdoc2docPandemic FluBMJ Group BMJ Group Privacy and Cookie Policy Website T & Cs Revenue Sources HighWire Press Feedback Help © 2012 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd window.fbAsyncInit = function() {FB.init({appId: '154318714596620', status: true, cookie: true,xfbml: true});};(function() {var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true;e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js';document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e);}());View the original article here
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 3 Comparison of physiotherapy interventions in relation to speed (m/s). Studies denoted as a or b distinguishes those published by the same first author and in the same yearView this table:View PopupView InlineTable 2 Summary of resultsFunctional mobility and balance outcomesWe found significant improvements with physiotherapy for the timed up and go test (-0.63 s, 95% confidence interval -1.05 to -0.21; P=0.003), functional reach test (2.16 cm, 0.89 to 3.43; P<0.001), and Berg balance scale (3.71 points, 2.30 to 5.11; P<0.001); (table 2, figs 4-6? ? ?). There was no difference with physiotherapy compared with no intervention for activity specific balance confidence scale (2.40 points, -2.78 to 7.57; P=0.36; table 2).
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 4 Comparison of physiotherapy interventions with controls in relation to the timed up and go test (s). Studies denoted as a or b distinguishes those published by the same first author and in the same year 
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 5 Comparison of physiotherapy interventions with controls in relation to the functional teach test (cm) 
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 6 Comparison of physiotherapy interventions with controls in relation to the Berg balance scale. Studies denoted as a or b distinguishes those published by the same first author and in the same year In the analysis for the timed up and go test, one trial was heavily weighted in the analysis owing to small standard deviations compared with other studies (fig 4).60 Furthermore, in the trial publication, a non-significant effect of martial arts intervention was reported (P=0.093), but when the data as reported in the paper were included in our analysis, a significant difference was found (P=0.003). We contacted the authors of this study to check whether the data reported in the paper were in fact standard errors, but they were confirmed as standard deviations. We therefore performed a sensitivity analysis, removing this study, and found that the overall result became not significant (-0.38 s, 95% confidence interval -0.96 to 0.21; P=0.21); thus, this result should be interpreted with caution.FallsSeven trials collected data for falls using a falls diary, reporting either the number of patients falling or the number of falls per patient.33 36 39 50 57 61 62 For both outcomes, there was a decrease in falls after physiotherapy. However, only three studies compared the two treatment groups, with two reporting no difference between the arms,50 57 and one reporting a significant difference favouring physiotherapy intervention.61 We saw no difference in the falls efficacy scale between the two treatment arms (-1.91 points, 95% confidence interval -4.76 to 0.94; P=0.19; table 2).Clinician rated disability on UPDRSThe UPDRS motor score improved with physiotherapy compared with no intervention (-5.01 points, 95% confidence interval -6.30 to -3.72; P<0.001, fig 7?). We also saw significant improvements in the UPDRS subscore for activities of daily living (-1.36 points, -2.41 to -0.30; P=0.01; web figure 4) and total scores with physiotherapy (-6.15, -8.57 to -3.73; P<0.001; web figure 5), but no difference in mental subscore (-0.44, -0.98 to 0.09; P=0.10; table 2).
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 7 Comparison of physiotherapy interventions with controls in relation to the UPDRS motor subscale. Studies denoted as a or b distinguishes those published by the same first author and in the same year Patient rated quality of life using Parkinson’s disease questionnaire 39Only data for the mobility domain and summary index of the Parkinson’s disease questionnaire 39 were available for meta-analysis. We saw no difference between treatment arms for either overall patient rated quality of life using the summary index (-0.38 points, 95% confidence interval -2.58 to 1.81; P=0.73) or the mobility domain (-1.43, -8.03 to 5.18; P=0.67).Treatment compliance, adverse events, and health economicsOnly 14 trials discussed patient compliance, with 1226 29 32 36 37 39 40 41 47 49 59 63 quantifying it in some form. No trials reported data for health economics, and only one commented on adverse events, stating that none had occurred during treatment sessions.36Subgroup analysisOnly one outcome, the UPDRS motor subscore, showed significant heterogeneity between the treatment effects of the different classes of intervention. In all other cases, there was no evidence of any differences (table 2). One outlying trial was the cause of this heterogeneity in the motor score;34 when this trial was excluded from the analysis, the result remained significant (-3.77 points, 95% confidence interval -5.15 to -2.39; P<0.001), but the test for between trial and between subgroup heterogeneity was no longer significant (P=0.44 and P=0.08, respectively).DiscussionA variety of physiotherapy methods are used to treat people with Parkinson’s disease. Previous reviews have focused on one type of physiotherapy (for example, exercise, treadmill training).19 20 This review brings together all the evidence from the numerous trials evaluating the various physiotherapy methods into one review to assess the overall effect of physiotherapy versus no physiotherapy, and it also allows an indirect comparison of the different physiotherapy methods used.This review provides evidence on the efficacy of physiotherapy in the short term (mean follow-up