↓ Skip to main content

Can Optical Coherence Tomography Be Used to Guide Treatment Decisions in Adult or Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Can Optical Coherence Tomography Be Used to Guide Treatment Decisions in Adult or Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis?
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Neurology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11940-018-0493-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Lambe, Olwen C. Murphy, Shiv Saidha

Abstract

With the recognition that neurodegeneration represents the principal substrate of disability in multiple sclerosis (MS), there has been increased strives towards identifying biomarkers for accurately quantifying and tracking neurodegeneration during the disease course. The retina provides an opportune "window" into the central nervous system (CNS) in MS, with retinal changes in MS reflecting not only local, but also global aspects of neurodegeneration and inflammation operative in the disease. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a rapid, inexpensive, reproducible, high-resolution imaging technique allowing accurate quantification of discrete retinal layers. OCT determined thinning of inner retinal layers such as the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and in particular the composite of the ganglion cell and inner plexiform (GCIP) layers, predominantly related to optic neuropathy, have been shown to not only correlate with high and low contrast visual function in MS, but also global MS disability scores, as well as whole brain and particularly gray matter volumes. Rates of GCIP thinning have been shown to be accelerated among MS patients exhibiting inflammatory activity outside of the visual pathways, as well as disability progression during follow-up. Moreover, baseline RNFL thickness in MS has been shown to have utility for predicting future disability accumulation. On the other hand, thickening of the inner nuclear layer (INL) in MS, the pathophysiologic basis of which remains to be elucidated, has been found to predict the development of clinical and radiological inflammatory activity, as well as subsequent disability progression in MS. Given the potential for OCT to provide insight into neurodegeneration and inflammation occurring in MS, this review focuses on the potential utility of OCT within the clinical setting to influence treatment decisions for MS patients. The evolution of spectral domain-OCT technology, with improved resolution and reproducibility allowing intra-retinal layer segmentation, has facilitated the determination that the OCT derived measure GCIP thickness is a highly accurate measure for quantifying and tracking neurodegeneration, and conversely neuroprotection, in MS. The strong relationships between rates of GCIP and brain atrophy across MS subtypes over time underpin the insight derived regarding the global MS disease process from OCT and highlight OCT as an excellent complementary tool to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for tracking MS patients. More recently, longitudinal studies are emerging which support the utility of OCT for monitoring the differential effects of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in MS. Although further work is required, there is mounting evidence supporting the utility of OCT in the clinical setting to monitor disease course in individual patients with MS and to aid in the prediction of disease course. As pharmacological treatment options in MS expand to also include potentially neuroprotective and/or remyelinating or neurorestorative drugs, OCT as a biomarker of neurodegeneration and neuroprotection (and neuroinflammation to a lesser degree) may become an invaluable tool in both the research and clinical settings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Neuroscience 14 17%
Engineering 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 33 40%
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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,934,709
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#350
of 471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,522
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.