| Title |
Role of aflibercept for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: comparison of clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s98853 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Oellers, Dilraj S Grewal, Sharon Fekrat |
| Abstract |
For years, the standard of care for branch-retinal-vein-occlusion-associated macular edema was initial observation followed by grid-pattern laser photocoagulation for persistent edema. Newer pharmacologic options have revolutionized the management of branch-retinal-vein-occlusion-associated macular edema, and the visual outcomes of these eyes are better than ever. However, a variety of available treatment options including intravitreal corticosteroids and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents have established novel challenges with regard to appropriate drug selection. This review summarizes the available clinical studies with special emphasis on the comparison of intravitreal aflibercept with ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and steroid agents. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,551
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,681
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#33
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 51% 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 312,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.