↓ Skip to main content

Systematic literature review of treatments for management of complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Systematic literature review of treatments for management of complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12886-016-0282-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven E. Bradshaw, Smeet Gala, Merena Nanavaty, Anshul Shah, Mkaya Mwamburi, Panos Kefalas

Abstract

To understand the clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for managing complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (iCRVO). We conducted a systematic literature review by searching multiple databases and ophthalmology conferences from 2004 to 2015. Studies published in English language and populations of age ≥45 years were included. For clinical endpoints, we defined eligibility criteria as randomized controlled trials, prospective before-and-after study designs, and non-randomized studies reporting on treatments in patients with iCRVO. For economic endpoints, all types of study design except cost-of-illness studies were included. We evaluated the definitions of ischemia, clinical and economic endpoints, and rate of development of complications. Risk of bias was assessed for clinical studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A total of 20 studies (1338 patients) were included. Treatments included anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs), steroids, and procedures primarily targeting macular edema and neovascularization. Ischemia was not defined consistently in the included studies. The level of evidence was mostly low. Most treatments did not improve visual acuity significantly. Development of treatment complications ranged from 11 to 57 %. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-VEGFs and steroids were below the accepted threshold of GB£30,000, but considering such treatments only ameliorate disease symptoms they seem relatively expensive. There is a lack of evidence for any intervention being effective in iCRVO, especially in the prevention of neovascularisation. iCRVO poses a significant clinical and economic burden. There is a need to standardize the definition of ischemia, and for innovative treatments which can significantly improve visual outcomes and prevent neovascular complications.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 35%
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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#1,543
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,858
of 354,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#23
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 354,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.