↓ Skip to main content

Reflections on Dry Eye Syndrome Treatment: Therapeutic Role of Blood Products

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Reflections on Dry Eye Syndrome Treatment: Therapeutic Role of Blood Products
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor J. Drew, Ching-Li Tseng, Jerard Seghatchian, Thierry Burnouf

Abstract

Dry eye syndrome (DES) is a multifactorial, frequent, pathology characterized by deficient tear production or increased evaporation of tears and associated with ocular surface alteration and inflammation. It mostly affects, but not exclusively, older individuals and leads to varying degrees of discomfort and decreased quality of life. Although the typical treatments of DES rely on using artificial tears, polyunsaturated fatty acids, integrin antagonists, anti-inflammatory agents, or on performing punctal occlusion, recently, standardized blood-derived serum eye drops (SED) are generating much interest as a new physiological treatment option. The scientific rationale in using SED for treating or releasing the symptoms of DES is thought to lie in its composition in multiple factors that resembles that of tears and contributes to the healing and protection of the ocular surface. This manuscript seeks to provide relevant background information on the management of DES, and on the increasing role that various types of SED or platelet lysates, from autologous or allogeneic origins, are playing in the improved therapeutic management of this pathology. The increasing role played by blood establishments in producing better-standardized SED is also addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 34 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Computer Science 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 40 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,888,543
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,294
of 5,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,556
of 330,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#58
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 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 5,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 330,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.