| Title |
Pharmacogenetics and nutritional supplementation in age-related macular degeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s84155 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Blake M Hampton, Jaclyn L Kovach, Stephen G Schwartz |
| Abstract |
The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) recommended treatment with antioxidants plus zinc in patients with intermediate or advanced age-related macular degeneration in order to reduce progression risks. Recent pharmacogenetic studies have reported differences in treatment outcomes with respect to variants in genes for CFH and ARMS2, although the treatment recommendations based on these differences are controversial. Different retrospective analyses of subsets of patients from the same AREDS trial have drawn different conclusions. The practicing clinician, who is not an expert on genetics, clinical trial design, or statistical analysis, may be uncertain how to interpret these results. Based on the balance of the available literature, we suggest not changing established practice recommendations until additional evidence from clinical trials becomes available. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 67% |
| Russia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,228,323
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#145
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,900
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#5
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 278,920 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 91% of its contemporaries.