| Title |
Combination of hyaluronic acid, carmellose, and osmoprotectants for the treatment of dry eye disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s157853 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio José Mateo Orobia, Jorge Saa, Alberto Ollero Lorenzo, José María Herreras |
| Abstract |
Dry Eye Disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease, with a high prevalence, that can have a great impact on the quality of life of patients. The first step of treatment includes the use of lacrimal substitutes composed of polymers, possible to associate osmoprotectant agents to the lacrimal substitutes. The aim of this article is to analyze the properties of the combination of hyaluronic acid (HA), carmellose, and osmoprotectors (Optava Fusion®; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) on DED. General considerations on the use of artificial tears are also proposed. A group of ophthalmologists, experts in the management of the ocular surface, analyzed different aspects related to DED; among them, the use of artificial tears in general and the properties of the combination of HA, carmellose, and osmoprotectors, in particular, were discussed. A review of the literature was carried out, which included different articles published in Spanish, English, and French until April 2017. DED is a common chronic pathology that usually requires sustained treatment. In addition, the combination of HA, carmellose, and osmoprotectors has proven to be effective in the treatment of symptoms and signs of dry eye by the synergistic action of all its components. This review provides key elements to help ophthalmologists who begin in the management of DED. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,963,683
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#709
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,909
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#13
of 27 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 67th 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 79% 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 344,853 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.