↓ Skip to main content

Statins for age-related macular degeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, August 2016
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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.
Title
Statins for age-related macular degeneration
Published in
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006927.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Gehlbach, Tianjing Li, Elham Hatef

Abstract

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive, late-onset disorder of the macula affecting central vision. It is the leading cause of blindness in people over 65 years in industrialized countries. Recent epidemiologic, genetic, and pathological evidence has shown that AMD shares a number of risk factors with atherosclerosis, leading to the hypothesis that statins may exert protective effects in AMD. The objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of statins compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in delaying the onset and progression of AMD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2016), PubMed (January 1946 to March 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 5 June 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2016. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that compared statins with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in people who were diagnosed as having the early stages of AMD. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the selection criteria, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes between the included studies. Two RCTs with a total of 144 participants met the selection criteria. Both trials compared simvastatin versus placebo in older people (older than 50 or 60 years) with high risk of developing AMD (drusen present on examination). Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, as we downgraded all outcomes due to limitations in the designs of the trials and insufficient outcome reporting. The larger trial, with 114 participants, was conducted in Australia and used a higher dose (40 mg daily) of simvastatin for three years. Participants and study personnel in this trial were adequately masked, however data were missing for 30% of participants at three years' follow-up. The smaller trial, with 30 participants, was conducted in Italy and used a lower dose (20 mg) of simvastatin for three months. This trial reported insufficient details to assess the risk of bias.Neither trial reported data for change in visual acuity. Low-quality evidence from the smaller trial, with 30 participants, did not show a statistically significant difference between the simvastatin and placebo groups in visual acuity values at three months of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.21 ± 0.56 in simvastatin group and 0.19 ± 0.40 in placebo group) or 45 days after the completion of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.20 ± 0.50 in simvastatin group and 0.19 ± 0.48 in placebo group). The lack of a difference in visual acuity was not explained by lens or retina status, which remained unchanged during and after the treatment period for both groups.Preliminary analyses of 42 participants who had completed 12 months' follow-up in the larger trial did not show a statistically significant difference between simvastatin and the placebo groups for visual acuity, drusen score, or visual function (effect estimates and confidence intervals were not available). Complete data for these outcomes at three years' follow-up were not reported. At three years, low-quality evidence showed an effect of simvastatin in slowing progression of AMD compared with placebo to be uncertain (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.09).One trial did not report adverse outcomes. The second trial reported no difference between groups in terms of adverse events such as death, muscle aches, and acute hepatitis. Evidence from currently available RCTs is insufficient to conclude that statins have a role in preventing or delaying the onset or progression of AMD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 25%
Researcher 4 20%
Librarian 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 15%
Unspecified 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,208,410
of 9,752,643 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
#5,399
of 8,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,806
of 263,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
#100
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,752,643 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 263,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.