| Title |
Location of submacular hemorrhage as a predictor of visual outcome after intravitreal ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s145893 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dimitrios Karagiannis, Irini Chatziralli, Konstantinos Kaprinis, Ilias Georgalas, Efstratios Parikakis, Panagiotis Mitropoulos |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes in patients with submacular hemorrhage (SMH) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with ranibizumab, and to evaluate the potential role of the SMH location in the final outcome after treatment. Participants in this study were 12 treatment-naïve patients with SMH due to neovascular AMD who were treated with intravitreal ranibizumab and had at least 12 months' follow-up. All patients underwent best-corrected visual acuity measurement and optical coherence tomography at baseline and at every visit posttreatment, while fluorescein angiography was done at baseline and at the discretion of the physician thereafter. Of the patients, 83.4% showed improvement or stabilization in best-corrected visual acuity after treatment at the 12-month follow-up, with a mean number of 7.3±2.9 injections. Patients with SMH surrounding the foveal area in 360° presented worse anatomical and functional outcomes compared to those with SMH adjacent to the fovea. Intravitreal ranibizumab seems to be safe and effective, either improving or stabilizing visual acuity, in patients with SMH due to wet AMD. The location of the SMH may predict the final outcome after treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,550
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,227
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#50
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.