↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Treatment outcomes in the DRy Eye Amniotic Membrane (DREAM) study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Treatment outcomes in the DRy Eye Amniotic Membrane (DREAM) study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/opth.s162203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marguerite B McDonald, Hosam Sheha, Sean Tighe, Susan B Janik, Frank W Bowden, Amit R Chokshi, Michael A Singer, Seema Nanda, Mujtaba A Qazi, Damon Dierker, Adam T Shupe, Brittany J McMurren

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of cryopreserved amniotic membrane (CAM) in reducing signs and symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in a large patient population. A retrospective chart review at 10 clinical sites was done of patients with refractory DED who received CAM and completed at least 3 months of follow-up. Data collected were demographics; medical history including previous and current ocular treatment, diagnosis, clinical presentations, comorbidity, duration and frequency of treatment with CAM; and concomitant medications. The primary outcome was the change in dry eye workshop (DEWS) score after treatment. A total of 97 eyes of 84 patients exhibited severe dry eye despite maximal medical treatments including topical artificial tears, cyclosporine-A, serum, antibiotics, and steroids. Patients manifested with superficial punctate keratitis (86%), filamentary keratitis (13%), exposure keratitis (19%), neurotrophic keratitis (2%), and corneal epithelial defect (7%). After CAM treatment for 5.4±2.8 days, 74 (88%) patients demonstrated an improved ocular surface along with a notable reduction of the severity as the overall DEWS score was significantly reduced from 3.25±0.5 at baseline to 1.44±0.6 at 1 week, 1.45±0.6 at 1 month, and 1.47±0.6 at 3 months (p<0.001). Ten eyes (10%) required repeated treatment to complete healing. Apart from discomfort during CAM placement, there were no adverse events. Placement of CAM is promising to enhance the recovery of ocular surface health and reduce signs and symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe DED.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 17%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 25 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,262,878
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#148
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,911
of 344,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 344,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.