↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

New developments in the treatment of optic neuritis

Overview of attention for article published in Eye and Brain, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
New developments in the treatment of optic neuritis
Published in
Eye and Brain, June 2010
DOI 10.2147/eb.s8386
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas M Jenkins, Ahmed T Toosy

Abstract

Acute optic neuritis (ON) has various etiologies. The most common presentation is inflammatory, demyelinating, idiopathic, or "typical" ON, which may be associated with multiple sclerosis. This must be differentiated from "atypical" causes of ON, which differ in their clinical presentation, natural history, management, and prognosis. Clinical "red flags" for an atypical cause of ON include absent or persistent pain, exudates and hemorrhages on fundoscopy, very severe, bilateral, or progressive visual loss, and failure to recover. In typical ON, steroids shorten the duration of the attack, but do not influence visual outcome. This is in contrast to atypical ON associated with conditions such as sarcoidosis and neuromyelitis optica, which require aggressive immunosuppression and sometimes plasma exchange. The visual prognosis of typical ON is generally good. The prognosis in atypical ON is more variable. New developments aimed at designing better treatments for patients who fail to recover are discussed, focusing on recent research elucidating mechanisms of damage and recovery in ON. Future therapeutic directions may include enhancing repair processes, such as remyelination or adaptive neuroplasticity, or alternative methods of immunomodulation. Pilot studies investigating the safety and proof-of-principle of stem cell treatment are currently underway.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,932,863
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Brain
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,019
of 106,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Brain
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 106,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them