AIM: To further evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab(IVB) versus macular photocoagulation(MPC) in treatment of diabetic macular edema(DME) by Meta-analysis. METHODS: Pertinent publications were identified through systemic searches of Pub Med, Medline,EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 30 November, 2013. Changes in central macular thickness(CMT) in μm and best-corrected visual acuity(BCVA) in log MAR equivalents were extracted at 1, 3, 6,12 and 24 mo after initial treatment, and a Meta-analysis was carried out to compare results between groups receiving IVB and MPC.RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trial(RCTs) and one high-quality comparative study were identified and included. Our Meta-analysis revealed that both IVB and MPC resulted in the improvements of CMT and BCVA in eyes with DME at 1mo after initial treatment, with IVB being significantly superior to MPC(P =0.01 and 0.02,respectively). The improvements of both measure outcomes at 3, 6, 12 and 24 mo after treatment did not vary significantly between the IVB groups and MPC groups(CMT at 3mo, P =0.85; at 6mo, P =0.29; at 12 mo,P =0.56; at 24 mo, P =0.71; BCVA at 3mo, P =0.31; at 6mo,P =0.30; at 12 mo, P =0.23; at 24 mo, P =0.52). However,the number of observed adverse events was low in all studies.CONCLUSION: Current evidence shows IVB treatment trends to be more effective in improvements of macular edema and vision in eyes with DME at an earlier follow up(1mo) compared with MPC. At other time, both interventions have comparable efficacy without statistical significances. To further evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus macular photocoagulation (MPC) in treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) by Meta-analysis. METHODS: Pertinent publications were identified through systemic searches of Pub Med, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 30 November, 2013. Changes in central macular thickness (CMT) in μm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in log MAR equivalents were extracted at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 mo after initial treatment, and a Meta-analysis was carried out to compare the results between groups receiving IVB and MPC.RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one high-quality comparative study were identified and included. Our Meta-analysis revealed that both IVB and MPC resulted in the improvements of CMT and BCVA in eyes with DME at 1mo after initial treatment, with IVB being significantly superior to MPC (P = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). The improvements of both measure outcomes at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment did not vary significantly between the IVB groups and MPC groups (CMT at 3mo, P = 0.85; at 6mo, P = 0.29; at 12 mo, P = 0.56; at 24 mo, P = 0.71; BCVA at 3 mo, P = 0.31; at 6 mo, P = 0.30; at 12 mo, P = 0.23; at 24 mo, P = 0.52). However, the number of observed adverse events was low in all studies. : Current evidence shows IVB treatment trends to be more effective in improvements of macular edema and vision in eyes with eyes with eyes