↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Real-world assessment of diquafosol in dry eye patients with risk factors such as contact lens, meibomian gland dysfunction, and conjunctivochalasis: subgroup analysis from a prospective…

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Real-world assessment of diquafosol in dry eye patients with risk factors such as contact lens, meibomian gland dysfunction, and conjunctivochalasis: subgroup analysis from a prospective observational study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s96540
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masahiko Yamaguchi, Takeshi Nishijima, Jun Shimazaki, Etsuko Takamura, Norihiko Yokoi, Hitoshi Watanabe, Yuichi Ohashi

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of diquafosol (DQS) ophthalmic solution in dry eye (DE) patients wearing contact lenses (CLs) or with concomitant meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) or conjunctivochalasis in a real-world setting. From a cohort of patients enrolled in a prospective observational study, DE patients who met the Japanese diagnostic criteria and who received DQS as a monotherapy were extracted and stratified according to the presence or absence of CL use, MGD, and conjunctivochalasis. Corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining score, tear film break-up time, total symptom score (12 DE-related subjective symptoms), patient-reported outcomes, and adverse reactions were investigated. DQS treatment resulted in significant improvement in total symptom score, corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining score, and tear film break-up time without significant differences between patient subgroups with versus without CL use, MGD, or conjunctivochalasis. Comparable proportions of patients perceived symptomatic improvements in all subgroups. There were no adverse reactions specifically associated with the CL use or any comorbidity of MGD or conjunctivochalasis. DQS can be used effectively and safely as a monotherapy for the treatment of DE patients wearing CLs or with concomitant MGD or conjunctivochalasis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
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 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,509
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#58
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,712 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 395,397 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 70 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.