↓ Skip to main content

Topical medication instillation techniques for glaucoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Topical medication instillation techniques for glaucoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010520.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Xu, Xuemei Wang, Meijing Wu

Abstract

Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide and the second most common cause of blindness after cataracts. The primary treatment for glaucoma aims to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) with the use of topical medicines. Topical medication instillation techniques, such as eyelid closure and nasolacrimal occlusion when instilling drops, have been proposed as potential methods to increase ocular absorption and decrease systemic absorption of the drops. To investigate the effectiveness of topical medication instillation techniques compared with usual care or another method of instillation of topical medication in the management of glaucoma or ocular hypertension. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 December 2016), Embase Ovid (1947 to 8 December 2016), PubMed (1948 to 8 December 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 8 December 2016), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts Database (1970 to 8 December 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 13 May 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (searched 8 December 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (searched 8 December 2016). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We included randomized controlled trials which had compared any topical medication instillation technique with usual care or a different method of instillation of topical medication. Two review authors independently screened records from the searches for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We followed methods recommended by Cochrane. We identified two trials (122 eyes of 61 participants) that had evaluated a topical medication instillation technique. We also identified two ongoing trials. Both included trials used a within-person design and administered prostaglandin monotherapy for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Because the trials evaluated different instillation techniques and assessed different outcomes, we performed no meta-analysis.One trial, conducted in the US, evaluated the effect of eyelid closure (one and three minutes) versus no eyelid closure on lowering IOP. At one to two weeks' follow-up, reduction in IOP was similar in the eyelid closure group and the no eyelid closure group (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 1.5; 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).The second trial, conducted in Italy, evaluated the effect of using an absorbent cloth to wipe excess fluid after instillation (fluid removal) versus not using an absorbent cloth (no removal) on reducing dermatologic adverse events. At four months' follow-up, eyelashes were shorter among eyes in the fluid removal group compared with the no fluid removal group (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -3.46 to 0.06; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence). Fewer eyes showed skin hyperpigmentation in the eyelid region towards the nose in the fluid removal group compared with the no removal group (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the difference was uncertain in the eyelid region towards the temples (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.66; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect hypertrichosis (excessive hair growth) was uncertain between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.98; 10 participants; low-certainty evidence).Neither trial reported other outcomes specified for this review, including the proportion of participants with IOP less than 21 mmHg; participant-reported outcomes related to the ease, convenience, and comfort of instillation techniques; physiologic measurements of systemic absorption; escalation of therapy; mean change in visual fields; optic nerve progression; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity; proportion in whom glaucoma developed; quality of life outcomes; or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Neither trial reported data at follow-up times of more than four months. Evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of topical medication instillation techniques for treatment of glaucoma is lacking. It is unclear what, if any, effects instillation techniques have on topical medical therapy for glaucoma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 21 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
#1,283,044
of 15,542,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,452
of 11,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,883
of 261,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,542,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 69% 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 261,948 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.