↓ Skip to main content

Neuroprotection for treatment of glaucoma in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Neuroprotection for treatment of glaucoma in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006539.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dayse F Sena, Kristina Lindsley

Abstract

Glaucoma is a heterogeneous group of conditions involving progressive damage to the optic nerve, deterioration of retinal ganglion cells, and ultimately visual field loss. It is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma (OAG), the most common form of glaucoma, is a chronic condition that may or may not present with increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Neuroprotection for glaucoma refers to any intervention intended to prevent optic nerve damage or cell death. The objective of this review was to systematically examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents for slowing the progression of OAG in adults compared with no neuroprotective agent, placebo, or other glaucoma treatment. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (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 16 August 2016. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical or oral treatments were used for neuroprotection in adults with OAG. Minimum follow-up time was four years. Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts from the literature searches. We obtained full-text copies of potentially relevant studies and re-evaluated for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data related to study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes. We identified one trial for this review, thus we performed no meta-analysis. Two studies comparing memantine to placebo are currently awaiting classification until study investigators provide additional study details. We documented reasons for excluding studies from the review. We included one multicenter RCT of adults with low-pressure glaucoma (Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study, LoGTS) conducted in the USA. The primary outcome was progression of visual field loss after four years of treatment with either brimonidine or timolol. Of the 190 adults enrolled in the study, the investigators excluded 12 (6.3%) after randomization; 77 participants (40.5%) did not complete four years of follow-up. The rate of attrition was unbalanced between groups with more participants dropping out of the brimonidine group (55%) than the timolol group (29%).Of those remaining in the study at four years, participants assigned to brimonidine showed less progression of visual field loss than participants assigned to timolol (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.86; 101 participants). Because of high risk of attrition bias and potential selective outcome reporting, we graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low. At the four-year follow-up, the mean IOP was similar in both groups among those for whom data were available (mean difference 0.20 mmHg, 95% CI -0.73 to 1.13; 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors did not report analyzable data for visual acuity or any data related to vertical cup-disc ratio, quality of life, or economic outcomes. The most frequent adverse event was ocular allergy to the study drug, which affected more participants in the brimonidine group than the timolol group (RR 5.32, 95% CI 1.64 to 17.26; 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although the only trial we included in this review found less visual field loss in the brimonidine-treated group, the evidence was of such low certainty that we can draw no conclusions from this finding. Further clinical research is needed to determine whether neuroprotective agents may be beneficial for individuals with OAG. Such research should focus on outcomes important to patients, such as preservation of vision, and how these outcomes relate to cell death and optic nerve damage. As OAG is a chronic, progressive disease with variability in symptoms, RCTs designed to measure the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents require a long-term follow-up of five years or longer to detect clinically meaningful effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 19%
Student > Master 29 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 25 16%

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 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,635,347
of 15,542,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,346
of 11,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,556
of 356,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,542,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 356,643 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.