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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost in glaucoma patients: a prospective crossover study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-017-0453-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wonseok Lee, Sunghoon Lee, HyoungWon Bae, Chan Yun Kim, Gong Je Seong |
| Abstract |
The aim of this work is to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of preservative containing 0.0015% tafluprost and preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost using a prospective crossover study. Primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and normotensive glaucoma (NTG) patients were randomized enrolled. Group 1 ("NPT to PT") patients used preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost (NPT) for 6 months and then changed to preservative containing 0.0015% tafluprost(PT) for 6 months. Group 2 ("PT to NPT") patients used preservative containing 0.0015% tafluprost for 6 months and changed to preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost for 6 months. At 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 12 months, we measured intraocular pressure for efficacy and graded corneal erosion, tear break-up time (TBUT), and subjective discomfort. A total of 20 patients and 20 eyes were enrolled. In Group 1 and 2, intraocular pressure was well controlled to approximately 14 mmHg (9.38-18.46% decrease). Generally, subjective satisfaction was improved after changing from PT to NPT (p = 0.03) and TBUT using PT was numerically inferior to that using NPT (p = 0.06) but not when changing from NPT to PT. Both preservative containing and preservative-free 0.0015% tafluprost reduced intraocular pressure significantly. In addition, changing medication from PT to NPT might improve subjective satisfaction and tear break up time. The trial registration number is NCT 03104621 (Apr/1/2017). Retrospectively registered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
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 10 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,978,863
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#1,103
of 2,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,685
of 310,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,418 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 310,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 50% of its contemporaries.