↓ Skip to main content

Antiviral treatment and other therapeutic interventions for herpes simplex virus epithelial keratitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 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
Antiviral treatment and other therapeutic interventions for herpes simplex virus epithelial keratitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002898.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirk R Wilhelmus

Abstract

Eye disease due to herpes simplex virus (HSV) commonly presents as epithelial keratitis which, though usually self-limiting, may persist or progress without treatment. To compare the relative effectiveness of antiviral agents, interferon, and corneal debridement in the treatment of HSV epithelial keratitis. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 12), PubMed (January 1946 to 31 December 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to 31 December 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to 31 December 2014), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to 31 December 2014), BIOSIS (January 1926 to 5 May 2014), Scopus (January 1966 to 31 December 2014), Japan Science and Technology Institute (J-Global) (January 1975 to 31 December 2014), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (January 1979 to 31 December 2014), British Library's Electronic Table of Contents (Zetoc) (January 1993 to 7 May 2014). We looked for trials listed on the the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov/), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (www. nhs.uk) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/) as of 31 December 2014. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. We also culled literature digests and conference proceedings as of 15 April 2014. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of HSV dendritic or geographic epithelial keratitis were included that reported the proportion of eyes healed at one week, two weeks, or both after enrolment. We tabulated data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes and used direct comparisons to estimate a risk ratio (RR) and, when feasible, a hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by an inconsistency index. A multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis consolidated direct and indirect comparisons of relative healing at 14 days. One hundred thirty-seven studies involving 8333 eyes met the inclusion criteria. Placebo-controlled studies were heterogeneous in comparison with idoxuridine (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.91) and few in number for vidarabine (RR 1.81; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.01), interferon (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64), and debridement. Vidarabine (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25), trifluridine (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.43), acyclovir (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.34), and brivudine (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51) were more effective than idoxuridine. Trifluridine (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32) and acyclovir (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19) were more effective than vidarabine. No significant differences in healing emerged among trifluridine, acyclovir, brivudine, and foscarnet although few studies compared brivudine or foscarnet with other antivirals. Any potential advantage of ganciclovir compared to acyclovir was mitigated by study heterogeneity and possible publication bias. Only one study evaluated the joint use of two topical antivirals. In a limited number of studies, oral acyclovir (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.07) or the combination of oral acyclovir with a topical antiviral (RR 1.36; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.74) appeared as effective as a single topical antiviral agent. Compared to topical antiviral monotherapy, the combination of an antiviral with either interferon or debridement had inconsistent effects on expediting healing and improving outcome. Placebo-controlled studies of HSV epithelial keratitis are limited to superseded interventions. Trifluridine and acyclovir are more effective than idoxuridine or vidarabine and similar in therapeutic effectiveness. Brivudine and foscarnet do not substantially differ in effectiveness from trifluridine or acyclovir. Ganciclovir is at least as effective as acyclovir. The addition of interferon to a nucleoside antiviral agent and the combination of debridement with antiviral treatment need to be further assessed to substantiate any possible advantage in healing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 <1%
Unknown 194 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 13%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 25 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 8%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 37 19%

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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,399,179
of 14,412,228 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,202
of 10,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,583
of 285,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,412,228 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. 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 285,005 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.