↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparative analysis of the development of collateral vessels in macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion following grid laser or ranibizumab treatment

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Comparative analysis of the development of collateral vessels in macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion following grid laser or ranibizumab treatment
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s81576
Pubmed ID
Authors

Afroditi Eleni Kokolaki, Ilias Georgalas, Chryssanthi Koutsandrea, Athanasios Kotsolis, Maria Niskopoulou, Ioannis Ladas

Abstract

To evaluate the differences in the development of collateral vessels in patients with macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) after treatment with either grid laser or ranibizumab (RNB). Comparative study including patients with macular edema due to acute BRVO and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 20/40 and 20/200. The sample was divided into two groups according to the treatment applied: laser group, including eyes treated with Argon laser when retinal hemorrhages were sufficiently absorbed to perform the treatment, and RNB group, including patients treated initially with one monthly intravitreal injection for a period of 3 months of RNB and more injections according to need thereafter. Before treatment patients in both groups, received a complete ophthalmic examination, including BCVA, fundus examination, optical coherence tomography, fundus color photography, and fundus fluorescein angiography (FA). This same protocol of examination was repeated in every visit after treatment, except FA that was only repeated every 3 months. The detection of the collateral vessels was done by two experienced examiners based on the analysis of the early phase of the FA. If there was a discrepancy in their judgment, the criterion of a third examiner evaluating the FA was considered. Mean baseline BCVA was 0.86±0.26 and 0.82±0.25 (logMAR [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution]) in the RNB and laser groups, respectively (P=0.83). At the end of the follow-up, mean BCVA was 0.38±0.18 and 0.64±0.33 (logMAR) in the RNB and laser groups, respectively. The difference in the final BCVA between both groups was statistically significant (P=0.002). Collaterals developed in both groups; 66.67% of patients (14 out of 21 patients) developed collaterals at a mean time of 6.14±2.60 months after diagnosis in the RNB group, and 68.18% (16 out of 22 patients) developed collaterals in the laser group at a mean time of 6.2±1.97 months after diagnosis. No statistically significant differences between groups were found in the number of cases developing collateral vessels (P=1.00) as well as in the time required for such development (P=0.947). The use of RNB for the treatment of macular edema due to BRVO does not seem to alter the development of collateral vessels. Future studies with larger samples are required to confirm these outcomes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 33%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
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 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,164
of 276,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#63
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 276,789 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 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.