| Title |
Efficacy and safety of different doses of a slow-release corticosteroid implant for macular edema: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s82929 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qingyu Liu, Mengmei He, Hui Shi, Qianyi Wang, Yaru Du, Junling Liu, Chengda Ren, Ding Xu, Jing Yu |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravitreal corticosteroid implants for macular edema. A total of 3,586 patients from previously reported randomized controlled trials were included. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, employing random-effects or fixed-effects models according to between-study heterogeneity. The main outcome measures were the ORs for effects and safety of intravitreal corticosteroid implants. Four eligible studies were included. Compared with the sham group, the ORs for ≥15 letter improvement of visual acuity in the high-dose and low-dose groups were 1.89 (95% CI 1.33-2.69, P=0.0004) and 1.62 (95% CI 1.10-2.41, P=0.02), respectively. The weight mean differences in central retinal thickness increases were -75.46 (95% CI -90.29, -60.63, P<0.0001) and -46.47 (95% CI -92.08, -0.86, P=0.05), respectively. However, the ORs for increased intraocular pressure in both intervention groups were higher than in the sham group, and were 11.50 (95% CI 7.24-18.28, P<0.00001) and 10.30 (95% CI 6.49-16.36, P<0.00001), respectively. The incidence of cataract was 7.25 (95% CI 5.68-9.25, P<0.00001) and 3.56 (95% CI 1.28-9.96, P=0.02) in the two intervention groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the intervention groups except for the incidence of cataract in which the OR was 1.59 (95% CI 1.28-1.97, P<0.001). Intravitreal corticosteroid implants are effective in treating macular edema. However, the efficacy is not related to corticosteroid dose. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,437
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,515
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#68
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.