↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Survey of intravitreal injection techniques among retina specialists in Israel

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Survey of intravitreal injection techniques among retina specialists in Israel
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s96452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ori Segal, Yael Segal-Trivitz, Arie Y Nemet, Noa Geffen, Ronit Nesher, Michael Mimouni

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe antivascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injection techniques of retinal specialists in order to establish a cornerstone for future practice guidelines. All members of the Israeli Retina Society were contacted by email to complete an anonymous, 19-question, Internet-based survey regarding their intravitreal injection techniques. Overall, 66% (52/79) completed the survey. Most (98%) do not instruct patients to discontinue anticoagulant therapy and 92% prescribe treatment for patients in the waiting room. Three quarters wear sterile gloves and prepare the patient in the supine position. A majority (71%) use sterile surgical draping. All respondents apply topical analgesics and a majority (69%) measure the distance from the limbus to the injection site. A minority (21%) displace the conjunctiva prior to injection. A majority of the survey participants use a 30-gauge needle and the most common quadrant for injection is superotemporal (33%). Less than half routinely assess postinjection optic nerve perfusion (44%). A majority (92%) apply prophylactic antibiotics immediately after the injection. The majority of retina specialists perform intravitreal injections similarly. However, a relatively large minority performs this procedure differently. Due to the extremely low percentage of complications, it seems as though such differences do not increase the risk. However, more evidence-based medicine, a cornerstone for practice guidelines, is required in order to identify the intravitreal injection techniques that combine safety and efficacy while causing as little discomfort to the patients as possible.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,917
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#63
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.