↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: current state-of-the-art care for optimizing visual outcomes and therapies in development

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: current state-of-the-art care for optimizing visual outcomes and therapies in development
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s74959
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aniruddha Agarwal, William R Rhoades, Mostafa Hanout, Mohamed Kamel Soliman, Salman Sarwar, Mohammad Ali Sadiq, Yasir Jamal Sepah, Diana V, Quan Dong Nguyen

Abstract

Contemporary management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has evolved significantly over the last few years. The goal of treatment is shifting from merely salvaging vision to maintaining a high quality of life. There have been significant breakthroughs in the identification of viable drug targets and gene therapies. Imaging tools with near-histological precision have enhanced our knowledge about pathophysiological mechanisms that play a role in vision loss due to AMD. Visual, social, and vocational rehabilitation are all important treatment goals. In this review, evidence from landmark clinical trials is summarized to elucidate the optimum modern-day management of neovascular AMD. Therapeutic strategies currently under development, such as gene therapy and personalized medicine, are also described.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Other 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,472
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#30
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.