OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials have shown that ranibizumab is efficacious in improving vision among patients with AMD. The objectives of this study are to: 1) evaluate whether as needed (PRN) is as effective as monthly treatment; and 2)compare the efficacy of ranibizumab 0.5mg treatment with: a)control; b)ranibizumab 0.3mg; and c)bevacizumab. METHODS: This is a systematic meta-analysis review of 8 randomized controlled clinical phase III or IV trials with a minimum of one year follow-up that investigated the efficacy of ranibizumab in treating AMD. The dependent variables were effect sizes of visual acuity gained and odds ratios of percentage of patients who gained ≥15 visual acuity letters. Weighted multiple regression analyses were used to compare the monthly vs. PRN treatment. RESULTS: Regression results showed no significant differences in efficacy between PRN and monthly treatment. The ranibizumab to control (placebo injection/surgery) comparison (4 effect sizes, 4 odds ratios, N=1047): showed that ranibizumab had significantly higher improvement in visual acuity (g=1.20, z=7.83, p<0.05) and a higher proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters (OR: 6.37; 95% CI 3.96-9.98; p<0.05). When comparing ranibizumab dose (6 effect sizes, 5 odds ratios, N=3449): ranibizumab 0.5mg showed significantly higher improvement in letters gained (g=0.08, z=2.34, p<0.05) than ranibizumab 0.3mg. However, the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 letters was not significantly different. The ranibizumab to bevacizumab comparison (3 effect sizes, 3 odds ratios, N= 800) revealed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab 0.5mg was found to be more effective than control and ranibizumab 0.3mg. Monthly treatment was not significantly different from PRN. More clinical trials are needed to compare the efficacy of ranibizumab and bevacizumab.