↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of 12-month therapeutic effect of conbercept and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: a real-life clinical practice study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Comparison of 12-month therapeutic effect of conbercept and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: a real-life clinical practice study
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0554-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yule Xu, Ao Rong, Wei Xu, Yunli Niu, Zhen Wang

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of intravitreal conbercept and ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in a real-life clinical practice. This was a retrospective study. Among 62 Chinese patients with DME, 32 patients (36 eyes) received intravitreal conbercept (IVC) injections and 30 patients (32 eyes) received intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections, once a month for 3 months followed by as needed therapy. All participants had at least 12 months of follow-up. We compared the changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) letter score and central retinal thickness (CRT) between groups, as well as the number of intravitreal injections delivered. Safety was assessed with the incidence of adverse events (AEs). At month 12, the mean BCVA letter score improved by 9.3 ± 5.2 with conbercept, and by 8.9 ± 4.4 with ranibizumab, the mean CRT reduction was 138.4 ± 97.7 μm and 145.2 ± 72.5 μm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference of improvement in BCVA (P = 0.756) and decrease in CRT (P = 0.748) between the two groups. The number of intravitreal injections delivered was significantly higher (P = 0.027) in the IVR group (7.2 ± 1.0 per eye) than in the IVC group (6.6 ± 0.9 per eye). There were no severe ocular adverse reactions or systemic adverse events. Both conbercept and ranibizumab are effective in the treatment of DME, achieving the similar clinical efficacy. In comparison to ranibizumab, conbercept shows a longer treatment interval and fewer intravitreal conbercept injections are needed.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,952,935
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#733
of 2,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,562
of 316,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,396 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 316,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 70% of its contemporaries.