| Title |
Clinical utility of cyclosporine (CsA) ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% for symptomatic relief in people with chronic dry eye: a review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s113437 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle K Rhee, Francis S Mah |
| Abstract |
To review the literature on the efficacy of cyclosporine (CsA) ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% on symptomatic relief in chronic dry eye disease. There is consistent evidence of objective improvements in chronic dry eye disease (Schirmer score, corneal and interpalpebral dye staining, and tear breakup time) with CsA, but variable results with symptomatic improvement, possibly due to patient tolerance of CsA, similar comforting effect with artificial tears and CsA vehicle, and the inherent subjective nature of symptom monitoring and analysis. This review explores the literature on CsA with special attention to symptomatic relief. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 20% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 32% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,259,784
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#984
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,543
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#19
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 330,503 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 52% of its contemporaries.