↓ Skip to main content

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: subgroup analysis of the MEAD study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: subgroup analysis of the MEAD study
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12886-015-0148-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albert J. Augustin, Baruch D. Kuppermann, Paolo Lanzetta, Anat Loewenstein, Xiao-Yan Li, Harry Cui, Yehia Hashad, Scott M. Whitcup, for the Ozurdex MEAD Study Group

Abstract

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX 0.7) was approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) after demonstration of its efficacy and safety in the MEAD registration trials. We performed subgroup analysis of MEAD study results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX 0.7 treatment in patients with previously treated DME. Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled phase 3 study in patients with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 34-68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (20/200-20/50 Snellen equivalent), and central retinal thickness (CRT) ≥300 μm measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of DEX (0.7 mg or 0.35 mg), or to sham procedure, with retreatment no more than every 6 months. The primary endpoint was ≥15-letter gain in BCVA at study end. Average change in BCVA and CRT from baseline during the study (area-under-the-curve approach) and adverse events were also evaluated. The present subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients randomized to DEX 0.7 (marketed dose) or sham based on prior treatment for DME at study entry. Baseline characteristics of previously treated DEX 0.7 (n = 247) and sham (n = 261) patients were similar. In the previously treated subgroup, mean number of treatments over 3 years was 4.1 for DEX 0.7 and 3.2 for sham, 21.5 % of DEX 0.7 patients versus 11.1 % of sham had ≥15-letter BCVA gain from baseline at study end (P = 0.002), mean average BCVA change from baseline was +3.2 letters with DEX 0.7 versus +1.5 letters with sham (P = 0.024), and mean average CRT change from baseline was -126.1 μm with DEX 0.7 versus -39.0 μm with sham (P < 0.001). Cataract-related adverse events were reported in 70.3 % of baseline phakic patients in the previously treated DEX 0.7 subgroup; vision gains were restored following cataract surgery. DEX 0.7 significantly improved visual and anatomic outcomes in patients with DME previously treated with laser, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide, or a combination of these therapies. The safety profile of DEX 0.7 in previously treated patients was similar to its safety profile in the total study population. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168337 and NCT00168389 , registered 12 September 2005.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 42 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,681,103
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#857
of 2,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,481
of 285,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,453 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 54% 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 285,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 54% of its contemporaries.