| Title |
Current primary open-angle glaucoma treatments and future directions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s32933 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriel Beidoe, Shaker A Mousa |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 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 | 124 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 38 | 30% |
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
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,332
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,925
of 191,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#18
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 191,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 52% of its contemporaries.