| 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. |
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 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
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
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#676
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,232
of 367,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#19
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 367,255 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.