Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

This trial showed that aflibercept is non-inferior to ranibizumab, but could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to ranibizumab or aflibercept, although bevacizumab is considerably cheaper than either.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Philip Hykin 1,2,*, A Toby Prevost 3, Sobha Sivaprasad 1,2, Joana C Vasconcelos 3, Caroline Murphy 4, Joanna Kelly 4, Jayashree Ramu 1, Abualbishr Alshreef 5, Laura Flight 5, Rebekah Pennington 5, Barry Hounsome , Ellen Lever 4, Andrew Metry 5, Edith Poku 5, Yit Yang 6, Simon P Harding 7, Andrew Lotery 8, Usha Chakravarthy 9, John Brazier 5

1 National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
2 Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK
3 Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
4 King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, King’s College London, London, UK
5 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
6 The Eye Infirmary, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
7 Eye and Vision Science, University of Liverpool, and St Paul’s Eye Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospitals, Liverpool, UK
8 Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
9 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
* Corresponding author Email: philhykin@gmail.com

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions