↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Quality of Life and Risks Associated with Systemic Anti-inflammatory Therapy versus Fluocinolone Acetonide Intraocular Implant for Intermediate Uveitis, Posterior Uveitis, or Panuveitis Fifty-four–Month Results of the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial and Follow-up Study
Published in
Ophthalmology, August 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.043
Pubmed ID
Authors

The Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Follow-up Study Research Group

Abstract

To evaluate the risks and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy with corticosteroid and immunosuppression when indicated for intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, and panuveitis. Additional follow-up of a randomized trial cohort. Two hundred fifty-five patients with intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis, randomized to implant or systemic therapy. Randomized subjects with intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis (479 eyes) were followed up over 54 months, with 79.2% completing the 54-month visit. Local and systemic potential complications of the therapies and self-reported health utility and vision-related and generic health-related QoL were studied prospectively. Among initially phakic eyes, cataract and cataract surgery occurred significantly more often in the implant group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.0; P = 0.0001; and HR, 3.8; P < 0.0001, respectively). In the implant group, most cataract surgery occurred within the first 2 years. Intraocular pressure elevation measures occurred more frequently in the implant group (HR range, 3.7-5.6; all P < 0.0001), and glaucoma (assessed annually) also occurred more frequently (26.3% vs. 10.2% by 48 months; HR, 3.0; P = 0.0002). In contrast, potential complications of systemic therapy, including measures of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, bone disease, and hematologic and serum chemistry indicators of immunosuppression toxicity, did not differ between groups through 54 months. Indices of QoL initially favored implant therapy by a modest margin. However, all summary measures of health utility and vision-related or generic health-related QoL were minimally and nonsignificantly different by 54 months, with the exception of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey physical component summary score, which favored implant by a small margin at 54 months (3.17 on a scale of 100; P = 0.01, not adjusted for multiple comparisons). Mean QoL results were favorable in both groups. These results suggest that fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy is associated with a clinically important increased risk of glaucoma and cataract with respect to systemic therapy, suggesting that careful monitoring and early intervention to prevent glaucoma is warranted with implant therapy. Systemic therapy subjects avoided a significant excess of toxicities of systemic corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapies in the trial. Self-reported QoL measures initially favored implant therapy, but over time the measures converged, with generally favorable QoL in both groups.

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.
Activity
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 34 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,659,148
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology
#2,427
of 8,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,748
of 302,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology
#28
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 302,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.