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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009510.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danny Mitry, Catey Bunce, David Charteris |
| Abstract |
Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most common occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The pathogenesis of BRVO is thought to involve both retinal vein compression and damage to the vessel wall, possibly leading to thrombus formation at sites where retinal arterioles cross retinal veins. The most common cause of visual loss in patients with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss and improve visual acuity (VA) in up to two thirds of individuals with MO secondary to BRVO, however, limitations to this treatment exist and newer modalities have suggested equal or improved efficacy. Recently, antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes. As elevated intraocular levels of VEGF have been demonstrated in patients with retinal vein occlusions there is a strong basis for the hypothesis that anti-VEGF agents may be beneficial in the treatment of vascular leakage and MO. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 17% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 38 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,076,220
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,457
of 13,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,348
of 293,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#127
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 293,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.