↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Efficiency and safety of subconjunctival injection of anti-VEGF agent – bevacizumab – in treating dry eye

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Efficiency and safety of subconjunctival injection of anti-VEGF agent – bevacizumab – in treating dry eye
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s85529
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaodan Jiang, Huibin Lv, Weiqiang Qiu, Ziyuan Liu, Xuemin Li, Wei Wang

Abstract

Dry eye is a chronic inflammatory ocular surface disease with high prevalence. The current therapies for dry eye remain to be unspecific and notcomprehensive. This study aims to explore safety and efficacy of a novel treatment - subconjunctival injection of bevacizumab - in dry eye patients. Sixty-four eyes of 32 dry eye patients received subconjunctival injection of 100 μL 25 mg/mL bevacizumab. Dry eye symptoms, signs (corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, conjunctival vascularity, corneal staining, tear break-up time, Marx line score, and blood pressure), and conjunctival impression cytology were evaluated 3 days before and 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after injection. Significant improvements were observed in dry eye symptoms, tear break-up time, and conjunctival vascularization area at all the visits after injection compared to the baseline (P<0.05). The density of the goblet cell increased significantly at 1 month and 3 months after injection (P<0.05). There was no visual and systemic threat observed in any patient. Subconjunctival injection of 100 μL 25 mg/mL bevacizumab is a safe and efficient treatment for ocular surface inflammation of dry eye disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 7 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,105
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,502
of 281,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#67
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 281,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.