↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Current primary open-angle glaucoma treatments and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Current primary open-angle glaucoma treatments and future directions
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2012
DOI 10.2147/opth.s32933
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaker Mousa, Beidoe

Abstract

Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a leading cause of blindness with no known cure. Management of the disease focuses on lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) with current classes of drugs like prostaglandin analogs, beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. These treatments have not helped all patients. Some patients continue to experience deterioration in the optic nerve even though their IOPs are within the normal range. New views have surfaced about other pathophysiological processes (such as oxidative stress, vascular dysfunction, and retinal cell apoptosis) being involved in POAG progression, and adjunctive treatments with drugs like memantine, bis(7)-tacrine, nimodipine, and mirtogenol are advocated. This review examines the current and proposed treatments for POAG. Some of the proposed drugs (bis(7)-tacrine, nimodipine, vitamin E, and others) have shown good promise, mostly as monotherapy in various clinical trials. It is recommended that both the current and proposed drugs be put through further robust trials in concurrent administration and evaluated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Other 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 9%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 32 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,605,152
of 13,199,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#599
of 1,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,628
of 146,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,199,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,715 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 146,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.