| Title |
Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for the treatment of diabetic macular edema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s44427 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wyatt B Messenger, Robert M Beardsley, Christina J Flaxel |
| Abstract |
Diabetic macular edema (DME) remains one of the leading causes of moderate to severe vision loss. Although laser photocoagulation was the standard of care for several years, few patients achieved significant improvements in visual acuity. As a result, several pharmacotherapies and surgeries have been investigated. The fluocinolone acetonide devices are one of the latest therapies considered for the treatment of DME. Despite bringing significant improvements in visual acuity, fluocinolone devices are associated with cataract formation, increased intraocular pressure (IOP), and surgery to lower IOP. Due to the risk of complications, fluocinolone acetonide devices should be considered only in cases refractive to first-line therapies. In this review, we evaluate current and emerging therapies for DME, with special emphasis on fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal devices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 May 2013.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#770
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,400
of 204,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 204,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.