1,720,972 research outputs found
ONSET AND DURATION OF VISUAL ACUITY IMPROVEMENT AFTER DEXAMETHASONE INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT IN EYES WITH MACULAR EDEMA DUE TO RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION
No full textPurpose: To evaluate the onset and duration of improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in eyes treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.7 mg (DEX implant) for macular edema after branch or central retinal vein occlusion. Methods: Post hoc analysis of data from 2 previously reported multicenter, 6-month, randomized sham-controlled clinical trials. Patients received a single DEX implant (n = 427) or sham procedure (n = 426) in the study eye. The primary endpoint was the percentage of eyes with >= 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at postimplant Day 7. Results: The baseline mean BCVA was 20/80. At Day 7, 10.3% of DEX implant-treated eyes versus 4.0% of sham-treated eyes (P = 15-letter improvement in the BCVA, and 27.2% of DEX implant-treated eyes versus 10.6% of sham-treated eyes had >= 10-letter improvement (P = 15-letter BCVA gain to the last observation of >= 15-letter BCVA gain was 70 days. Conclusion: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant treatment led to improvement in BCVA compared with sham procedure as early as postimplant Day 7. The duration of >= 3-line improvement was typically 2 to 3 months
Comparison of Intravitreal Bevacizumab Upload Followed by a Dexamethasone Implant versus Dexamethasone Implant Monotherapy for Retinal Vein Occlusion with Macular Edema
Full text linkPurpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of three intravitreal bevacizumab upload injections followed by a dexamethasone implant versus dexamethasone implant monotherapy in eyes with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion. Methods: Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients were included in this prospective, consecutive, nonrandomized case series: group 1 consisted of 38 patients (22 with central retinal vein occlusion, CRVO, 16 with branch retinal vein occlusion, BRVO) treated using a dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) alone; group 2 consisted of 26 patients (14 CRVO, 12 BRVO) treated with three consecutive intravitreal bevacizumab injections at monthly intervals followed by a dexamethasone implant. In case of recurrence, both cohorts received further dexamethasone implants. Preoperatively and monthly best corrected visual acuity (BCVA, ETDRS), central retinal thickness (Spectralis-OCT), intraocular pressure, and wide-angle fundus photodocumentation (Optomap) were performed. The primary clinical endpoint was BCVA at 6 months after initiation of therapy. Secondary endpoints were central retinal thickness and safety of the therapy applied. Results: In group 1, an increase in BCVA of 2.5 (+/- 1.6) letters in the CRVO and of 13.0 (+/- 3.2) letters in BRVO patients was seen after 6 months, in group 2 of 5.9 (+/- 0.4) letters (CRVO) and 3.8 (+/- 2.4) letters (BRVO), which was not statistically significant. When comparing the two treatment groups with respect to the type of vein occlusion, there was a significant advantage for BRVO patients for the dexamethasone implant monotherapy (BRVO patients in group 1, p = 0.005). Central retinal thickness showed a significant reduction after 6 months only in patients of group 1, both for CRVO (p = 0.01) and BRVO (p = 0.003). First recurrence after the first dexamethasone implant injection occurred after 3.8 months (mean) in CRVO and 3.5 months in BRVO patients (group 1), versus 3.2 and 3.7 months, respectively, in group 2. In group 1, 63.6% with CRVO and 50% with BRVO showed an increased intraocular pressure after treatment; in group 2, 57.1% with CRVO and 50.0% with BRVO, respectively. Conclusion: In CRVO, there was no difference between the two treatment strategies investigated. However, in BRVO, dexamethasone implant monotherapy was associated with better functional outcome. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base
Three-Year, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema
No full textPurpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex, DEX implant) 0.7 and 0.35 mg in the treatment of patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Two randomized, multicenter, masked, sham-controlled, phase III clinical trials with identical protocols were conducted. Data were pooled for analysis. Participants: Patients (n = 1048) with DME, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/50 to 20/200 Snellen equivalent, and central retinal thickness (CRT) of >= 300 mu m by optical coherence tomography. Methods: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to study treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, or sham procedure and followed for 3 years (or 39 months for patients treated at month 36) at = 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end. Safety measures included adverse events and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results: Mean number of treatments received over 3 years was 4.1, 4.4, and 3.3 with DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham, respectively. The percentage of patients with >= 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline at study end was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (22.2%) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (18.4%) than sham (12.0%; P <= 0.018). Mean average reduction in CRT from baseline was greater with DEX implant 0.7 mg (-111.6 mu m) and DEX implant 0.35 mg (-107.9 mu m) than sham (-41.9 mu m; P < 0.001). Rates of cataract-related adverse events in phakic eyes were 67.9%, 64.1%, and 20.4% in the DEX implant 0.7 mg, DEX implant 0.35 mg, and sham groups, respectively. Increases in IOP were usually controlled with medication or no therapy; only 2 patients (0.6%) in the DEX implant 0.7 mg group and 1 (0.3%) in the DEX implant 0.35 mg group required trabeculectomy. Conclusions: The DEX implant 0.7 mg and 0.35 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint for improvement in BCVA. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with previous reports. (C) 2014 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Macular Edema Related to Branch or Central Retinal Vein Occlusion
No full textObjective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). Design: Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. Participants: We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. Methods: At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 250 mu m. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. Results: At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a >= 10-mmHg intraocular pressure (IOP) increase from baseline was observed in (12.6% after the first treatment, and 15.4% after the second). The IOP increases were usually transient and controlled with medication or observation; an additional 10.3% of patients initiated IOP-lowering medications after the second treatment. A >= 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline was achieved by 30% and 32% of patients 60 days after the first and second DEX implant, respectively. Conclusions: Among patients with macular edema owing to BRVO or CRVO, single and repeated treatment with DEX implant had a favorable safety profile over 12 months. In patients who qualified for and received 2 DEX implant injections, the efficacy and safety of the 2 implants were similar with the exception of cataract progression. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 2453-2460 (C) 2011 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Effect of the duration of macular edema on clinical outcomes in retinal vein occlusion treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant
No full text10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.028Ophthalmology11961190-1198OPHT
- …
