Differences between protocol and review in the first published version of this review

We added LILACS to the list of electronic databases. We used a sensitivity analysis for the robustness of results in comparisons including only one trial according to a statistical technique derived from Borm 2009.

Changes in 2012 update compared to protocol and previous version of review

• We specified that we will also include studies comparing different anti‐VEGF drugs, but will exclude intravitreal steroids as they are the subject of another Cochrane Review. Moreover, we decided not to consider the comparison of bevacizumab with bevacizumab plus triamcinolone, which included two studies; in fact, this comparison investigates the additional effect of triamcinolone rather than the benefit of anti‐VEGF drugs.

• We computed indirect comparison odds ratios (OR) of a gain of 3+ and 2+ lines for bevacizumab and pegaptanib versus ranibizumab as the reference drug using random‐effects model logistic regression.

Changes in 2014 update compared to protocol and previous version of review

• We included five more studies but the conclusions did not change.

• We no longer consider economic evidence as antiangiogenic therapy is widely approved and reimbursed.

• We eliminated the table on retinal detachment as an ocular adverse event as it proved to be extremely rare in all studies.

• Units of analysis issue: in this update, we no longer performed a sensitivity analysis regarding the primary outcome to determine the impact of excluding studies with eyes, rather than participants, as the unit of analysis. We obtained a considerable amount of evidence from studies with individuals as unit of analysis for the main comparisons.

• Single trial issue: in the 2012 and 2014 updates of the review, we did not use the sensitivity analysis on the robustness of single trial results recommended by Borm 2009, as originally planned. Instead, we calculated the 'Optimal Information Size' to rate the quality of evidence regarding imprecision as recommended by the GRADE study group in Guyatt 2011.

Changes in 2018 update compared to protocol and previous version of review

• We aimed to compare different anti‐VEGF drugs and developed a new protocol accordingly.

• We used network meta‐analysis technique to augment direct evidence with indirect evidence.

• We restricted the number of outcomes to three efficacy outcomes, three safety outcomes, and quality of life.

• We included six more studies and conclusions are changed.

• We added the sensitivity analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies to the protocol.

• We included a cross‐over study and treated it as a parallel arm study in efficacy analyses.

Changes in update, 2023 compared to the protocol of the previous version

• We changed the primary outcome from proportion of participants gaining three lines of vision to mean change in BCVA from baseline to 24 months

• We removed systemic serious adverse events and replaced with ocular serious adverse events.

• In this update, we graded the certainty of the evidence for mixed estimates using the CINeMA platform (Nikolakopoulou 2020), which provides detailed guidance for its implementation.