| Title |
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008081.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gianni Virgili, Francesca Menchini, Giovanni Casazza, Ruth Hogg, Radha R Das, Xue Wang, Manuele Michelessi |
| Abstract |
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a thickening of the central retina, or the macula, and is associated with long-term visual loss in people with diabetic retinopathy (DR). Clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) is the most severe form of DMO. Almost 30 years ago, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) found that CSMO, diagnosed by means of stereoscopic fundus photography, leads to moderate visual loss in one of four people within three years. It also showed that grid or focal laser photocoagulation to the macula halves this risk. Recently, intravitreal injection of antiangiogenic drugs has also been used to try to improve vision in people with macular oedema due to DR.Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is based on optical reflectivity and is able to image retinal thickness and structure producing cross-sectional and three-dimensional images of the central retina. It is widely used because it provides objective and quantitative assessment of macular oedema, unlike the subjectivity of fundus biomicroscopic assessment which is routinely used by ophthalmologists instead of photography. Optical coherence tomography is also used for quantitative follow-up of the effects of treatment of CSMO. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 362 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 56 | 15% |
| Researcher | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 72 | 20% |
| Unknown | 108 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 121 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 12 | 3% |
| Psychology | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 58 | 16% |
| Unknown | 118 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,988,296
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,219
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,167
of 361,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 361,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.