↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Brinzolamide 1%/timolol versus dorzolamide 2%/timolol in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: prospective randomized patient-preference study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Brinzolamide 1%/timolol versus dorzolamide 2%/timolol in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: prospective randomized patient-preference study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s88891
Pubmed ID
Authors

Romeo Altafini, Maria-Luise Scherzer, Douglas Hubatsch, Paolo Frezzotti

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess preference for fixed-combination brinzolamide 1%/timolol 0.5% (BTFC) versus fixed-combination dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% (DTFC) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In this prospective, single-masked crossover study, patients were randomized 1:1 to BTFC-DTFC or DTFC-BTFC treatment sequences. Patients self-administered each medication for 7 days, with a 48-hour washout period between treatments, and rated ocular discomfort after each treatment period. Medication preferences based on ocular comfort (primary endpoint) and anticipated adherence were assessed. Safety outcomes included adverse events and intraocular pressure. Between-group differences in treatment preference and ocular discomfort scores were analyzed using chi-square and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, respectively. Adherence, intraocular pressure, and adverse events were summarized descriptively. In total, 112 patients were enrolled (mean ± SD age, 66±11 years), and 109 patients completed the study. Numerically, more patients in the intent-to-treat dataset preferred BTFC versus DTFC (59.3% versus 40.7%); however, this result was not statistically significant (treatment difference, 18.6%; P=0.0670). Mean ocular discomfort scores (range, 0-9) were statistically significantly lower with BTFC versus DTFC (2.6 versus 3.7; P=0.0002, Wilcoxon- Mann-Whitney test). More patients who preferred BTFC over DTFC were confident that they would adhere to their preferred medication. Treatment-related adverse events included blurred vision with BTFC and eye irritation or eye pain with DTFC. BTFC and DTFC were preferred by approximately 60% and 40% of patients, respectively, and BTFC was associated with less patient-reported ocular discomfort. Greater ocular comfort of glaucoma medications may improve treatment adherence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 9 45%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,187,441
of 16,427,352 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#261
of 2,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,393
of 370,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#12
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,427,352 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 370,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.