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.
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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Retinal Gene Therapy: Surgical Vector Delivery in the Translation to Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2017.00174 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. Alex Ochakovski, K. Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt, M. Dominik Fischer |
| Abstract |
An exceptionally high number of monogenic disorders lead to incurable blindness, making them targets for the development of gene-therapy. In order to successfully apply therapeutic vector systems in vivo, the heterogeneity of the disease phenotype needs to be considered. This necessitates tailored approaches such as subretinal or intravitreal injections with the aim to maximize transduction of target cell populations, while minimizing off-target effects and surgical complications. Strategic decisions on parameters of the application are crucial to obtain the best treatment outcomes and patient safety. While most of the current retinal gene therapy trials utilize a subretinal approach, a deeper understanding of the numerous factors and considerations in choosing one delivery approach over the other for various ocular pathologies could lead to an improved safety and treatment efficacy. In this review we survey different vector injection techniques and parameters applied in recent retinal (pre-)clinical trials. We explore the advantages and shortcomings of each delivery strategy in the setting of different underlying ocular pathologies and other relevant factors. We highlight the potential benefits for patient safety and efficacy in applying those considerations in the decision making process. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 142 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 18% |
| Researcher | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 41 | 29% |
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 24 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,711,488
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,185
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,148
of 323,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#50
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 323,671 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 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.