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 |
Comparison of Eylea® with Lucentis® as first-line therapy in patients with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration in real-life clinical practice: retrospective case-series analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-015-0101-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophie C. Böhni, Mario Bittner, Jeremy P. Howell, Lucas M. Bachmann, Livia Faes, Martin K. Schmid |
| Abstract |
To identify differences between Ranibizumab and Aflibercept in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD) in a real-life clinical setting. We compared two groups of patients with a fairly similar prognosis either receiving Aflibercept or Ranibizumab within a pro re nata regimen for 1 year. Changes in visual acuity (letters) and central foveal thickness (CFT) and frequency of injections after completing the loading phase were evaluated using two separate multivariate mixed linear models. When correcting for baseline differences between the Aflibercept (11 eyes) and Ranibizumab (16 eyes) group, there was neither divergence in visual acuity (-0.97 letters (95 % CI. -6.06-4.12); p = 0.709), nor a significant difference in the reduction of CFT (-25.16 μm, 95 % CI; (-78.01-27.68); p = 0.351) between the two groups 1 year after treatment initiation. Also, the number of injection did not differ (0.04 (95 % CI; -0.16-0.09); p = 0.565). In contrast to health claims, treatment-naïve nvAMD, Ranibizumab and Aflibercept were equivalent in terms of functional and morphologic outcomes and number of injections when studied in real-life clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 19% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,751,621
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#517
of 2,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,087
of 265,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,347 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 265,957 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 73% of its contemporaries.