↓ Skip to main content

Implantable miniature telescope (IMT) for vision loss due to end-stage age-related macular degeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
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
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions
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
Implantable miniature telescope (IMT) for vision loss due to end-stage age-related macular degeneration
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011140.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amisha Gupta, Jessica Lam, Peter Custis, Stephen Munz, Donald Fong, Marguerite Koster

Abstract

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) causes progressive and irreversible damage to the retina, resulting in loss of central vision. AMD is the third leading cause of irreversible visual impairment worldwide and the leading cause of blindness in industrialized countries. Since AMD is more common in older individuals, the number of affected individuals will increase significantly as the population ages. The implantable miniature telescope (IMT) is an ophthalmic device developed to improve vision in individuals who have lost vision due to AMD. Once implanted, the IMT is used to enlarge objects in the central visual field and focus them onto healthy areas of the retina not affected by AMD, allowing individuals to recognize objects that they otherwise could not see. It is unclear whether and how much the IMT can improve vision in individuals with end-stage AMD. To assess the effectiveness and safety of the IMT in improving visual acuity and quality of life in people with late or advanced AMD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS; AMED; Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science; OpenSIGLE; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (last searched 27 June 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov; the ICTRP and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Medical Devices database. The date of the search was 2 November 2017, with the exception of mRCT which is no longer in service. We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that compared the IMT versus no IMT. Two review authors independently assessed all studies for inclusion, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our search yielded 1042 unique records. We removed irrelevant studies after screening titles and abstracts, and evaluated five full-text reports from four studies; three were non-randomized studies. There was one ongoing RCT that compared the OriLens intraocular telescope with standard low vision training in eyes with end-stage AMD. Results for this study are expected in 2020. We found no RCT or quasi-RCT and can draw no conclusion about the effectiveness and safety of the IMT in improving visual acuity in individuals with late or advanced AMD. Since the IMT is typically implanted monocularly based upon which eye has better best-corrected distance visual acuity, randomization between eyes within an individual may not be acceptable. Studies are needed that compare outcomes between individuals randomized to the device versus individuals not implanted, at least during study follow-up, who serve as controls.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,883,344
of 13,292,231 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,389
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,737
of 270,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,292,231 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 270,803 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 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.