↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Combination of hyaluronic acid, carmellose, and osmoprotectants for the treatment of dry eye disease

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 33%

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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#10,088,683
of 12,612,351 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,062
of 1,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,423
of 272,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,351 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 1,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 272,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.