↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Update on corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Update on corticosteroids for diabetic macular edema
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s115546
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Schwartz, Ingrid Scott, Michael Stewart, Harry Flynn Jr.

Abstract

Diabetic macular edema (DME) remains an important cause of visual loss. Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are generally used as first-line treatments for patients with center-involving DME, there is an important role for corticosteroids as well. Corticosteroids may be especially useful in pseudophakic patients poorly responsive to anti-VEGF therapies, in patients wishing to reduce the number of required injections, and in pregnant patients. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide has been used for many years but is not approved for this indication. An extended-release bioerodable dexamethasone delivery system and an extended-release nonbioerodable fluocinolone acetonide insert have both achieved regulatory approval for the treatment of DME. All intravitreal corticosteroids are associated with risks of cataract progression, elevation of intraocular pressure, and endophthalmitis. There is no current consensus regarding the use of corticosteroids, but they are valuable for selected patients with center-involving DME.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 29%

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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,530,778
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#653
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,182
of 262,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#26
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 262,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 65% of its contemporaries.