↓ Skip to main content

Photodynamic therapy versus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: A meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Photodynamic therapy versus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: A meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12886-015-0064-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meng Yong, Minwen Zhou, Guohua Deng

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of photodynamic therapy (PDT) compared to intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors in the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). Relevant studies were selected through an extensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Outcomes of interest included visual outcomes, anatomic variables, and adverse events. Six studies enrolling a total of 346 patients were included. The weighted mean differences (WMDs) of the mean changes in LogMAR VA when comparing PDT with anti-VEGF were -0.02 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: -0.12-0.08) at 3 months, 0.02 (95 % CI: -0.12-0.16) at 6 months, 0.02 (95 % CI: -0.15-0.18) at 12 months, and -0.17 (95 % CI: -0.90-0.55) at 24 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups at any of the time points. PDT was found to be associated with greater reduction of central retinal thickness (CRT) at six months (WMD: 44.94; 95 % CI: 16.44-73.44; P = 0.002), and it was superior to anti-VEGF therapy in achieving complete polyp regression (odd ratio, OR: 6.85; 95 % CI: 2.15-21.79; P = 0.001).Rates of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two treatments. PDT appeared to result in greater CRT reduction at six months and higher polyp regression rate. However, the two treatments appear to be comparable in terms of best corrected visual acuity change and adverse events.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 33%

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 25 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,491,377
of 5,398,474 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#299
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,951
of 189,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#27
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,398,474 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 426 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. 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 189,142 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 45 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.