| Title |
Ranibizumab in the treatment of patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s17423 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Bandello, Umberto De Benedetto, Karl Anders Knutsson, Maurizio Battaglia Parodi, Maria Lucia Cascavilla, Pierluigi Iacono |
| Abstract |
Diabetic macular edema is the major cause of visual acuity impairment in diabetic patients. The exact etiopathogenesis is unknown and, currently, grid/focal retinal laser photocoagulation represents the recommended treatment. It has been demonstrated that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in the pathogenesis of diabetic macular edema by mediating vascular permeability and accumulation of intracellular and extracellular fluid, and thereby represents an appealing candidate as a therapeutic target for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. The advent of intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs has opened up a new era for the management of diabetic macular edema. At present, three anti-VEGF substances are available for routine clinical use, ie, pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence supporting the use of ranibizumab in clinical practice. Most of the studies analyzed in this review are prospective, controlled clinical trials that have focused on documenting the therapeutic effect of ranibizumab and its safety, providing encouraging results. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 28% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 47% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
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 04 October 2011.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3,207
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,263
of 136,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 136,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.