↓ Skip to main content

Macular Morphology and Visual Acuity in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Ophthalmology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Macular Morphology and Visual Acuity in the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials
Published in
Ophthalmology, May 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn J. Jaffe, Daniel F. Martin, Cynthia A. Toth, Ebenezer Daniel, Maureen G. Maguire, Gui-Shuang Ying, Juan E. Grunwald, Jiayan Huang, Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials Research Group

Abstract

To describe the effects of treatment for 1 year with ranibizumab or bevacizumab on macular morphology and the association of macular morphology with visual acuity (VA) in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 59 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 65 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 21 July 2026.
All research outputs
#2,908,259
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology
#951
of 8,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,956
of 236,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology
#13
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 236,873 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.