↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparative effectiveness of aflibercept for the treatment of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Comparative effectiveness of aflibercept for the treatment of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2013
DOI 10.2147/opth.s29974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Thomas, Shaymaa S Mousa, Shaker A Mousa

Abstract

Wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common reason for vision loss in the United States. Many treatments, such as laser therapy and photodynamic therapies, have been used but their efficacy is limited. Emerging anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies are now considered the standard of care. Anti-VEGF agents inhibit angiogenesis in the eye by suppressing abnormal blood vessel growth, leading to vision improvement. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab are two examples of anti-VEGF drugs that have been approved; both showed promise based on the visual acuity scale. Aflibercept, another new therapy known to trap VEGF and inhibit multiple growth factors, is promising not only because it can be taken bimonthly based on year 1 of the VIEW trials, but it can also be extended, as demonstrated in year 2 of the VIEW trials. Based on a cost-effect analysis, aflibercept is comparable to other leading therapies. This is a review of relevant clinical trials that have proven the non-inferiority and safety of aflibercept compared to the standard of care and its unique role in the current management of wet AMD.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iceland 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 September 2023.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#708
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,861
of 206,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#8
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 206,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.