↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Evaluation of peripheral fundus autofluorescence in eyes with wet age-related macular degeneration

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of peripheral fundus autofluorescence in eyes with wet age-related macular degeneration
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s120402
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tetsuyuki Suetsugu, Aki Kato, Munenori Yoshida, Tsutomu Yasukawa, Akiko Nishiwaki, Norio Hasegawa, Hideaki Usui, Yuichiro Ogura

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of abnormal peripheral fundus autofluorescence (FAF) in wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using wide-field imaging instrument. A retrospective, case-controlled study involving 66 eyes of 46 Japanese wet AMD patients and 32 eyes of 20 control patients was performed. Wide-field FAF images were obtained for typical AMD (37 eyes/28 patients), polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) (22 eyes/20 patients), and retinal angiomatous proliferation (RAP) (seven eyes/four patients). Two masked ophthalmologists independently graded the images for mottled, granular, and nummular patterns. Main outcome measures were abnormal peripheral FAF frequencies and relative risks by disease subgroups and treatments. Abnormal peripheral FAF patterns were found in 51.5% of wet AMD eyes compared with 18.8% of control eyes (P<0.001). Mottled, granular, and nummular patterns were found in 45.5%, 31.8%, and 16.7%, respectively, of wet AMD eyes. Each disease subgroup (typical AMD, 54.1%; PCV, 36.4%; and RAP, 85.7%) showed significantly higher frequencies of peripheral FAF (P<0.001, P=0.03, and P<0.001, respectively) than control eyes (18.8%). There were no significant differences (P=0.76) between the frequencies in untreated and treated eyes. Eyes of Japanese wet AMD patients had a higher abnormal FAF prevalence compared with control eyes. Among the three disease subtypes, abnormal patterns were least prevalent in PCV eyes.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Researcher 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#313,394
of 416,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#30
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 416,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.