↓ Skip to main content

Current Approach to Dry Eye Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Current Approach to Dry Eye Disease
Published in
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12016-014-8438-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valéria Valim, Virginia Fernandes Moça Trevisani, Jacqueline Martins de Sousa, Verônica Silva Vilela, Rubens Belfort

Abstract

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the tears and ocular surface that causes tear film instability with potential damage to the ocular surface. The prevalence of dry eye in the world population ranges from 6 to 34 %. It is more common in those aged over 50, and affects mainly women. Since the introduction of the Schirmer's test in 1903, other tests have been developed to evaluate dry eye, such as biomicroscopy, the tear film breakup time (BUT), vital dyes (lissamine green and rose bengal), fluorescein, leaf fern test, corneal sensitivity test, conjunctiva impression cytology, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and tear osmolarity measurement. Although there is no gold standard, it is advisable to combine at least two tests. Strategies for treating DED have recently been modified and include patient education, tear substitute, corticosteroids, secretagogues, fatty acids, immunomodulators, occlusion of lacrimal puncta surgery and, tarsorrhaphy. Biological therapy and new topical immunomodulators such as tacrolimus, tofacitinib and IL-1 receptor inhibitor are being tested. In this review, the evaluation tests for dry eye are compared and the main studies on treatment are presented, with emphasis on studies in patients with Sjögren's syndrome. The authors propose an approach for the management of dry eye.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 35 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,017,111
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#453
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,494
of 233,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 233,134 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.