↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Efficacy of valproic acid for retinitis pigmentosa patients: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
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 (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of valproic acid for retinitis pigmentosa patients: a pilot study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s109995
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satoshi Iraha, Yasuhiko Hirami, Sachiko Ota, Genshiro A Sunagawa, Michiko Mandai, Hidenobu Tanihara, Masayo Takahashi, Yasuo Kurimoto

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of valproic acid (VPA) use in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). This was a prospective, interventional, noncomparative case study. In total, 29 eyes from 29 patients with RP whose best-corrected visual acuities (BCVAs) in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) ranged from 1.0 to 0.16 with visual fields (VFs) of ≤10° (measured using Goldmann perimeter with I4) were recruited. The patients received oral supplementation with 400 mg of VPA daily for 6 months and were followed for an additional 6 months. BCVAs, VFs (measured with the Humphrey field analyzer central 10-2 program), and subjective questionnaires were examined before, during, and after the cessation of VPA supplementation. The changes in BCVA and VF showed statistically significant differences during the internal use of VPA, compared with after cessation (P=0.001). With VPA intake, BCVA in logMAR significantly improved from baseline to 6 months (P=0.006). The mean deviation value of the VF significantly improved from baseline to 1 month (P=0.001), 3 months (P=0.004), and 6 months (P=0.004). These efficacies, however, were reversed to the baseline levels after the cessation of VPA intake. There were no significant relations between the mean blood VPA concentrations of each patient and the changes in BCVA and VF. During the internal use of VPA, 15 of 29 patients answered "easier to see", whereas blurred vision was registered in 21 of 29 patients on cessation. No systemic drug-related adverse events were observed. While in use, oral intake of VPA indicated a short-term benefit to patients with RP. It is necessary to examine the effect of a longer VPA supplementation in a controlled study design.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 26%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 13%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 2 6%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,538
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,189
of 367,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#40
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 367,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 51% of its contemporaries.