↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema insufficiently responsive to available therapies: a real-life…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema insufficiently responsive to available therapies: a real-life study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s105385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascale Massin, Ali Erginay, Bénédicte Dupas, Aude Couturier, Ramin Tadayoni

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME). Prospective study in patients with DME insufficiently responsive to laser and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). Patients with history of rise of intraocular pressure after intravitreal corticosteroids were excluded. The macular edema rapidly decreased both in group 1 (prior laser only; n=7 eyes) and group 2 (prior laser and ≥3 monthly anti-VEGF therapy; n=10 eyes) and central subfield thickness was reduced by -299 μm (P=0.008) and -251 μm (P=0.016) at 12 months, respectively. Mean area under the curve from baseline to last value for pseudophakic eyes was +4.2 letters in group 1 and +9.5 letters in group 2. Overall, the FAc implant was well tolerated. This prospective study confirms the efficacy of the FAc implant in DME patients insufficiently responsive to laser and anti-VEGF. Moreover, with a careful patient selection, our safety results would support an earlier use of FAc in the DME treatment pathway.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Other 7 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Mathematics 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,775,944
of 16,437,187 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#337
of 2,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,877
of 262,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#15
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,437,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,370 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 262,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.