↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Intravitreal aflibercept versus intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Intravitreal aflibercept versus intravitreal ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s131381
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sameh Mosaad Fouda, Ahmed M Bahgat

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with moderate visual loss. This study is a randomized prospective study. Seventy eyes with DME were divided into two groups (each containing 35 eyes). Eyes in group I were treated with intravitreal injection of 2 mg/0.05 mL aflibercept and eyes in group II were treated with intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg/0.1 mL ranibizumab. All the eyes had three successive injections as a loading dose (with 1 month interval), and then the patients were followed up monthly for 12 months. The outcomes of the study were visual acuity, central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of re-injections of the drug. Mean age of the patients in group I was 55.05±4.7 years and in group II was 56.64±5.8 years (P=0.17). The mean baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of eyes treated with aflibercept was 0.17±0.05 and with ranibizumab was 0.18±0.04 (P=0.9). BCVA was improved in both the groups at the end of the follow-up period and was found to be 0.42±0.28 and 0.37±0.23, respectively (P=0.27). The mean baseline CMT of eyes in group I was 465.29±33.7 µm and in group II was 471.5±34.4 µm (P=0.65). CMT decreased in both the groups to 360.8±85.7 µm and 387.3±87.8 µm, respectively (P=0.2). The mean number of drug re-injection was 2.62±0.68 and 3.03±0.95 in both the groups, respectively (P=0.02). Aflibercept and ranibizumab have the same efficacy in the treatment of DME in eyes with moderate visual loss but with less number of drug re-injection and less treatment burden with aflibercept (2.62±0.68 versus 3.03±0.95).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Other 6 16%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,357,897
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#633
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,140
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#10
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.