| Title |
Comparing different dosing regimens of bevacizumab in the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-015-0608-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander JE Foss, Margaret Childs, Barnaby C Reeves, Theo Empeslidis, Paul Tesha, Sushma Dhar-Munshi, Samah Mughal, Lucy Culliford, Chris A Rogers, Wei Tan, Alan Montgomery |
| Abstract |
Bevacizumab (Avastin®) is as effective as ranibizumab (Lucentis®) in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). However it has two important structural differences. First, it has two active sites instead of one; second, it retains the Fc portion of the antibody which would be expected to confer a significantly longer half-life. These agents have been associated with systemic complications including strokes, so it is desirable to use the smallest effective dose. Furthermore, the standard dosing regimen requires monthly hospital visits, which present a significant challenge both to the hospital services and to the patients (who are elderly). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 34% |
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 19 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#4,758
of 5,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,720
of 258,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#99
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 258,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.