↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of pharmacological agents for the treatment of uveitic macular oedema (UMO): a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
The effectiveness of pharmacological agents for the treatment of uveitic macular oedema (UMO): a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0203-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad O. Tallouzi, David J. Moore, Melanie Calvert, Philip I. Murray, Nicholas Bucknall, Alastair K. Denniston

Abstract

Macular oedema (MO) describes the accumulation of fluid in the central part of the retina, known as the 'macula' which provides central vision. MO is the leading cause of sight loss in patients with intraocular inflammation (uveitis). There is a lack of consensus over the treatment of uveitic macular oedema (UMO). The proposed systematic review will evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacological agents used to treat UMO. All systemic, local, or topical pharmacological agents will be included. Standard systematic review methodology will be employed to identify, select and extract data from comparative studies (randomised/non-randomised trials and observational studies) of the pharmacological interventions in patients with UMO. Searches will be conducted through bibliographic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) and clinical trials registers. No restriction will be placed on either language or year of publication. Translation of non-English language articles will be undertaken to minimise selection bias. The primary outcome of interest will be best corrected visual acuity and secondary outcomes will be adverse events, health-related quality of life, assessment of UMO using central macular thickness (e.g. by optical coherence topography (OCT)), clinical and angiographic assessment of UMO, clinical estimation of vitreous haze. Risk of bias assessment appropriate to each study design will be undertaken. Data will be grouped by comparison, tabulated and narratively synthesised. Meta-analysis will be undertaken where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses, also network analyses and intra/inter-pharmacological class analyses will be undertaken where deemed appropriate. A number of published studies have investigated the effectiveness of the pharmacological agents used to treat UMO. However, there is no recent systematic review that synthesises this evidence. This systematic review will analyse the effectiveness of systemic, local and topical therapies to treat UMO. The findings will provide important evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making for the treatment of UMO. Prospero CRD42015019170.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,071,321
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#573
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,178
of 400,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 400,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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.