↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular edema in clinical practice: effectiveness and patterns of use (ECHO Study Report 1)

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Anti-VEGF treatment of diabetic macular edema in clinical practice: effectiveness and patterns of use (ECHO Study Report 1)
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s128509
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin J Blinder, Pravin U Dugel, Sanford Chen, J Michael Jumper, John G Walt, David A Hollander, Lanita C Scott

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and injection frequency of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors as used in clinical practice for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. Multicenter (10 sites), retrospective chart review in patients (n=156) who received ≥3 anti-VEGF injections. Data collected for ≥6 months after the first injection included Snellen best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) by time-domain or spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT or SD-OCT). Mean number of anti-VEGF injections (627 bevacizumab, 594 ranibizumab, 1 aflibercept) was 5.8 (year 1), 5.0 (year 2), and 3.4 (year 3). Percentage of patients with BCVA of 20/40 or better and CRT ≤250 μm on TD-OCT or ≤300 μm on SD-OCT at the same visit (primary endpoint) ranged from 16.4% to 38.9% after the first 10 injections; 51.9%-62.3% achieved ≥20/40 BCVA and 26.2%-48.0% met CRT criteria. Therapy was well tolerated with 19 treatment-related adverse events (all ocular) reported. Anti-VEGF injections were administered less frequently and were less effective than those in the ranibizumab registration trials. After each of the first 9 injections, <25% of patients achieved both BCVA of 20/40 or better and a dry macula. A substantial proportion of patients are suboptimal responders to anti-VEGF therapy; these patients may be candidates for other therapies, including intravitreal corticosteroid and laser therapy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 28 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 36 36%
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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,803
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,848
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 424,972 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.