↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Bevacizumab vs Aflibercept on Visual Acuity Among Patients With Macular Edema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The SCORE2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
186 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Bevacizumab vs Aflibercept on Visual Acuity Among Patients With Macular Edema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The SCORE2 Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, May 2017
DOI 10.1001/jama.2017.4568
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingrid U. Scott, Paul C. VanVeldhuisen, Michael S. Ip, Barbara A. Blodi, Neal L. Oden, Carl C. Awh, Derek Y. Kunimoto, Dennis M. Marcus, John J. Wroblewski, Jacqueline King

Abstract

Studies have established the efficacy and safety of aflibercept for the treatment of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Bevacizumab is used off-label to treat this condition despite the absence of supporting data. To investigate whether bevacizumab is noninferior to aflibercept for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion. The SCORE2 randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 66 private practice or academic centers in the United States, and included 362 patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion who were randomized 1:1 to receive aflibercept or bevacizumab. The first participant was randomized on September 17, 2014, and the last month 6 visit occurred on May 6, 2016. Analyses included data available as of December 30, 2016. Eyes were randomized to receive intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (1.25 mg; n = 182) or aflibercept (2.0 mg; n = 180) every 4 weeks through month 6. The primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA) letter score (VALS) from the randomization visit to the 6-month follow-up visit, based on the best-corrected electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study VALS (scores range from 0-100; higher scores indicate better VA). The noninferiority margin was 5 letters, and statistical testing for noninferiority was based on a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval. Among 362 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [12] years; 157 [43.4%] women; mean [SD] VALS at baseline, 50.3 [15.2] [approximate Snellen VA 20/100]), 348 (96.1%) completed the month 6 follow-up visit. At month 6, the mean VALS was 69.3 (a mean increase from baseline of 18.6) in the bevacizumab group and 69.3 (a mean increase from baseline of 18.9) in the aflibercept group (model-based estimate of between-group difference, -0.14; 97.5% CI, -3.07 to ∞; P = .001 for noninferiority), meeting criteria for noninferiority. Ocular adverse events in the aflibercept group included 4 participants with intraocular pressure (IOP) more than 10 mm Hg greater than baseline; ocular adverse events in the bevacizumab group included 1 participant with endophthalmitis (culture negative), 9 with IOP more than 10 mm Hg greater than baseline, 2 with IOP higher than 35 mm Hg, and 1 with angle-closure glaucoma not attributed to the study drug or procedure. Among patients with macular edema due to central retinal or hemiretinal vein occlusion, intravitreal bevacizumab was noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity after 6 months of treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Other 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 17 11%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 50 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 57 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 541. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#46,455
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#938
of 36,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#913
of 330,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#25
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 330,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.