Fig 1.
Flow chart for classifying abnormal FAF.
Table 1.
Baseline profiles of 66 study patients.
Fig 2.
Changes in the mean BCVA logMAR and mean retinal sensitivity during the follow-up period.
The data are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean. *P<0.01 compared with baseline (paired t-test).
Table 2.
Proportion and retinal sensitivity of abnormal FAF patterns.
SD, standard deviation.
Fig 3.
The relationship between retinal sensitivity and the distance from the abnormal FAF.
(A) The temporal changes in the mean retinal sensitivity in three groups. (†P<0.01 vs. close at each time point, ANOVA). (B) The changes in the mean retinal sensitivity from baseline in the three groups. The data are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean. (*P<0.05 and **P<0.01 as compared with baseline, paired t-test).
Table 3.
Results of the random intercept and slope model.
Fig 4.
The proportion of points with a 4-dB or greater decline in the groups in which the distances to the abnormal FAF differed (P = 0.113, Fisher’s exact test).
Table 4.
Characteristics of six eyes with progression to neovascular AMD.
Fig 5.
The impact of supplementation on the mean retinal sensitivity.
(A) The temporal changes in the mean retinal sensitivity in groups with and without supplementation. (B) The changes in the mean retinal sensitivity from baseline. (†P<0.01, ANOVA; *P<0.01 compared with baseline, paired t-test).
Table 5.
Characteristics of patients with or without supplementation.