| Title |
Comparison between the EX-PRESS P-50 implant and trabeculectomy in patients with open-angle glaucoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s94850 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María Elena Mendoza-Mendieta, Ana Paola López-Venegas, Gerardo Valdés-Casas |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the EX-PRESS P-50 implant compared to standard trabeculectomy (TBC). Single-center prospective randomized study; 20 eyes of 20 patients were treated with the EX-PRESS P-50 implant, and 20 eyes of 20 patients with TBC, over a 19-month period. Records of all patients were reviewed and compared. Success was defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) <21 and >5 mmHg or a decrease of 30% of IOP. Failure was defined as >21 mmHg or decline in visual acuity. Statistical analysis was made with Student's t-test and χ (2) test analyzed with SPSS version 13.0. The average follow-up was 8.6 months (±4.9 months) for the EX-PRESS P-50 group and 9.6 months (±5.3 months) for the TBC group. The postoperative visual acuity and IOP were not significantly different. We report more complications in the EX-PRESS P-50 group. At 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up, the control group was found to be free of complications, whereas multiple complications were observed in the EX-PRESS P-50 group at 3 and 6 months follow-up. We found no differences in either group with respect to success. Both procedures are equally effective for the treatment of glaucoma, with 80% success in the EX-PRESS P-50 group and 72.7% in the control group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Russia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 34% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 48% |
| Psychology | 6 | 21% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,240
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#36
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 406,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.