↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Critical appraisal of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Critical appraisal of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2013
DOI 10.2147/opth.s36443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael W Stewart

Abstract

Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness among individuals of working age in industrialized nations, with most of the vision loss resulting from diabetic macular edema (DME). The formation of DME depends on the action of several growth factors and inflammatory mediators, but vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) appears to be critical for breaking down the blood-retinal barrier and promoting the accumulation of macular edema. Laser photocoagulation has been the standard-of-care for three decades, and although it stabilizes vision, significant gains in visual acuity after treatment are unusual. Several VEGF inhibitors (pegaptanib, aflibercept, and ranibizumab) have been initially developed and tested for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration and subsequently for DME. In Phase I, II, and III trials for DME, ranibizumab has been shown to be superior to macular laser photocoagulation and intraocular triamcinolone acetonide injections for improving visual acuity and drying the macula. As a result, ranibizumab is the only anti-VEGF drug that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of DME. Most experts now consider intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to be standard-of-care for DME involving the fovea.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Other 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 23%
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 30 July 2013.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,780
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,962
of 206,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#42
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 206,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.