↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization with intravitreal ranibizumab injections: the role of age

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization with intravitreal ranibizumab injections: the role of age
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s135174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Karagiannis, George Kontadakis, Konstantinos Kaprinis, Athanassios Giarmoukakis, Ilias Georgalas, Efstratios Parikakis, Miltiadis Tsilimbaris

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore the role of age as a prognostic factor for the outcome of myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) treatment with intravitreal ranibizumab injections. A retrospective review of charts of patients treated with intravitreal injections of ranibizumab for the treatment of myopic CNV was done. Patients with other ophthalmic disease were excluded. Patients were followed for at least 2 years. The correlation between age and the change in visual acuity and the number of injections during treatment was investigated. Age of the patients was significantly correlated with the number of injections that the patients received (Pearson's r=0.585, P=0.005). Also, it was significantly correlated with improvement in corrected distance visual acuity, defined as the difference between final and initial LogMAR corrected distance visual acuity (Pearson's r=0.614, P=0.003). Age significantly affects the visual outcome of myopic CNV treatment with ranibizumab. Younger patients in our study needed fewer intravitreal injections and achieved a more significant improvement in vision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Other 4 29%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Computer Science 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,768,315
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#444
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,949
of 263,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 263,147 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 56% of its contemporaries.