| Title |
Vitrectomy for center-involved diabetic macular edema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s104906 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J Browning, Chong Lee, Michael W Stewart, Maurice B Landers |
| Abstract |
To determine the effect of vitrectomy for center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME). This was a retrospective study of 53 eyes of 45 patients who had vitrectomy for CI-DME and were followed up for at least 12 months. Charts were reviewed for visual acuity (VA), central subfield mean thickness measured by optical coherence tomography, presurgical and postsurgical interventions for CI-DME, and number of office visits in the first 12 months after surgery. Preoperative spectral domain optical coherence tomography was performed on 38 patients, and they were graded for ellipsoid zone (EZ) intactness by three independent graders with assessment of agreement between graders using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis. The median VA improved from 20/100 (interquartile range [IQR], 20/63-20/200) at baseline to 20/63 (IQR, 20/32-20/125) at 12 months. The median central subfield mean thickness improved from 505 μm (IQR, 389-597 μm) at baseline to 279 μm (IQR, 246-339 μm) at 12 months. Intergrader agreement for EZ intactness was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.4294-0.6356). There was no relationship between preoperative intactness of the EZ and the 12-month change in VA. Vitrectomy consistently thins the macula in CI-DME and, on average, leads to clinically significant improvement in VA comparable in size to that reported with serial intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. A large, comparative, prospective, randomized clinical trial of these two treatments is needed to determine which is more effective and cost-effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,496
of 314,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#55
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 314,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.