| Title |
Management of noninfectious posterior uveitis with intravitreal drug therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s89341 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hui Yi Tan, Aniruddha Agarwal, Cecilia S Lee, Jay Chhablani, Vishali Gupta, Manoj Khatri, Jayabalan Nirmal, Carlos Pavesio, Rupesh Agrawal |
| Abstract |
Uveitis is an important cause of vision loss worldwide due to its sight-threatening complications, especially cystoid macular edema, as well as choroidal neovascularization, macular ischemia, cataract, and glaucoma. Systemic corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy for noninfectious posterior uveitis; however, various systemic side effects can occur. Intravitreal medication achieves a therapeutic level in the vitreous while minimizing systemic complications and is thus used as an exciting alternative. Corticosteroids, antivascular endothelial growth factors, immunomodulators such as methotrexate and sirolimus, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently available for intravitreal therapy. This article reviews the existing literature for efficacy and safety of these various options for intravitreal drug therapy for the management of noninfectious uveitis (mainly intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 49% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,457
of 332,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#48
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.