↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Ocular side effects of biological agents in oncology: what should the clinician be aware of?

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Ocular side effects of biological agents in oncology: what should the clinician be aware of?
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, December 2013
DOI 10.2147/ott.s54606
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Hager, B Seitz

Abstract

During the last 20 years, biologicals have become increasingly relevant in oncologic therapy. Depending on the medication used, there are different profiles of ocular side effects. Although these can be present in up to 70% of patients, they are generally underreported in the literature. Therefore, the pathophysiological details of their development are often poorly understood. Herein we attempt to identify groups of biologicals to which a specific side effect profile can be assigned. We also tried to capture all relevant side effects and therefore conducted several database investigation including Medline, Cochrane library, and the drugs section of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), using the following search strings: "name of biological agent (both generic and commercial names)" AND "eye" OR "ocular". If we found a side effect that has been associated with a drug, we researched Medline using the following search string: "name of biological agent" (both generic and commercial names) AND "term for the specific side effect". Due to the wealth of material we report only the drugs that are approved by the FDA.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,979,867
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#880
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,863
of 320,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 320,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.