Characterization of Intraocular Pressure Increases and Management Strategies Following Treatment With Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implants in the FAME Trials.
Published in
Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina, May 2016
To compare elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) management and outcomes among patients with diabetic macular edema who received fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implants versus sham-control treatment and explore the prior ocular steroid exposure impact on IOP outcomes.
Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts or electronic VA testers. Goldmann applanation tonometry was used to measure IOP.
Elevated IOP was more common in FAc-versus sham control-treated patients. Medication, and less often trabeculoplasty or surgery, was used to lower IOP without affecting VA outcomes. No patient treated with 0.2 µg/day FAc who received prior ocular steroid required IOP-lowering surgery.
Elevated IOP may occur following FAc implant receipt; however, in the present study, it was manageable and did not impact vision outcomes. Patients previously treated with ocular steroid did not require IOP-lowering surgery following 0.2 µg/day FAc implant administration. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016;47:426-435.].
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
2%
Other
4
8%
Unknown
17
35%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,298,601
of 32,375,021 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina
#38
of 1,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,372
of 327,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina
#1
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,375,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,063 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 327,330 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
