| Title |
EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device: efficacy, safety, and predictability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s63350 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica E Chan, Peter A Netland |
| Abstract |
Trabeculectomy has been the traditional primary surgical therapy for open-angle glaucoma. While trabeculectomy is effective in lowering intraocular pressure, complications associated with the procedure have motivated the development of alternative techniques and devices, including the EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device. This review describes the efficacy, safety, complication rates, and potential advantages and disadvantages of the EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device. EX-PRESS implantation is technically simpler compared with that of trabeculectomy, with fewer surgical steps. Vision recovery has been more rapid after EX-PRESS implantation compared with trabeculectomy. Intraocular pressure variation is lower during the early postoperative period, indicating a more predictable procedure. While efficacy of the EX-PRESS implant has been comparable to trabeculectomy, postoperative complications appear less common after EX-PRESS implantation compared with trabeculectomy. The EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device appears to be safe and effective in the surgical management of open-angle glaucoma. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 12% |
| Engineering | 4 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,348,916
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#193
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,146
of 276,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 276,962 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.