↓ Skip to main content

Electroretinographic findings associated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus PRP plus intravitreal ranibizumab treatment for high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Documenta Ophthalmologica, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Electroretinographic findings associated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus PRP plus intravitreal ranibizumab treatment for high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10633-012-9322-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Messias, José Afonso Ramos Filho, Katharina Messias, Felipe P. P. Almeida, Rogério A. Costa, Ingrid U. Scott, Florian Gekeler, Rodrigo Jorge

Abstract

To evaluate changes in electroretinographic (ERG) findings after panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) compared to PRP plus intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (IVR) in eyes with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Patients with high-risk PDR and no prior laser treatment were assigned randomly to receive PRP (PRP group; n = 9) or PRP plus IVR (PRPplus group; n = 11). PRP was administered in two sessions (weeks 0 and 2), and IVR was administered at the end of the first laser session (week 0) in the PRPplus group. Standardized ophthalmic evaluations including (ETDRS) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and fluorescein angiography to measure area of fluorescein leakage (FLA), were performed at baseline and at weeks 16 (±2), 32 (±2) and 48 (±2). ERG was measured according to ISCEV standards at baseline and at week 48 (±2). At 48 weeks, 2,400-3,000 laser spots had been placed in eyes in the PRP group, while only 1,400-1,800 spots had been placed in the PRPplus group. Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant (P < 0.05) FLA reduction observed at all study visits in both groups, with the reduction observed in the PRPplus group significantly larger than that in the PRP group at week 48. ROD b-wave amplitude was significantly reduced to 46 ± 5% (P < 0.05) of baseline in the PRP group and 64 ± 6% (P < 0.05) in the PRPplus group. This reduction was significantly larger in the PRP group than in the PRPplus group (P = 0.024; t Test). Similar results were observed for the dark-adapted Combined Response (CR) b-wave amplitude, with a reduction at 48 weeks compared to baseline of 45 ± 4% in the PRP group and 62 ± 5% in the PRPplus group; the reduction in CR b-wave amplitude was significantly larger in the PRP group than in the PRPplus group (P = 0.0094). CR a-wave, oscillatory potentials, cone single flash, and 30 Hz flicker responses showed statistically significant within-group reductions, but no differences in between-group analyses. These results suggest that treating high-risk PDR with PRP plus IVR is effective for PDR control, and permits the use of less extensive PRP which, in turn, induces less retinal functional loss, in particular for rod-driven post-receptoral responses, than treatment with PRP alone.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 18 31%
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 18 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,163,398
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Documenta Ophthalmologica
#366
of 456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,290
of 160,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Documenta Ophthalmologica
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 160,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.