↓ Skip to main content

Short-term efficacy of intravitreal Aflibercept injections for retinal angiomatous proliferation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Short-term efficacy of intravitreal Aflibercept injections for retinal angiomatous proliferation
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0497-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hung-Da Chou, Wei-Chi Wu, Nan-Kai Wang, Lan-Hsin Chuang, Kuan-Jen Chen, Chi-Chun Lai

Abstract

To evaluate the short-term efficacy of intravitreal injections of aflibercept (IVA) to treat retinal angiomatous proliferation (RAP) and identify factors related to functional outcomes. This retrospective case series consisted of 19 eyes in 19 patients with RAP. All 19 eyes received 3 monthly consecutive IVA. The primary outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) after the last IVA. Of the 19 treated eyes, 8 (42%) were pre-treated with 1 dose of bevacizumab one month prior to the initiation of treatment with aflibercept. BCVA was significantly improved and CRT was significantly reduced after 3 consecutive IVAs (P = 0.014 and P = 0.0002, respectively). Stabilization or improvement in BCVA was observed in 17 eyes (90%) treated with IVA. Eyes with baseline fibrovascular pigment epithelial detachment (PED) showed no significant gain in BCVA, and fibrovascular PED was negatively correlated with final BCVA (Spearman's correlation coefficient = - 0.481, P = 0.037). The mean follow-up was 3.5 ± 0.5 months. In this short-term study, three consecutive IVAs showed efficacy for improving vision and reducing retinal edema in RAP patients. Eyes with fibrovascular PED showed poorer responses, and the presence of fibrovascular PED at baseline was negatively correlated with visual outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#2,278
of 2,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,317
of 317,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,554 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 317,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.