| Title |
Clinical-Decision Criteria to Identify Recurrent Diabetic Macular Edema Patients Suitable for Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Therapy (ILUVIEN®) and Follow-Up Considerations/Recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s252359 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alfredo Adán, Francisco Cabrera, Marta S Figueroa, Enrique Cervera, Francisco J Ascaso, Patricia Udaondo, Maximino Abraldes, Miguel Ángel Reyes, Marta Pazos, Bernardete Pessoa, Félix Armadá |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#15,179,141
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,158
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,107
of 432,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#24
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 432,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.