↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laser treatment of drusen to prevent progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
7 tweeters
6 Wikipedia pages


54 Dimensions

Readers on

157 Mendeley
Laser treatment of drusen to prevent progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006537.pub3
Pubmed ID

Gianni Virgili, Manuele Michelessi, Maurizio B Parodi, Daniela Bacherini, Jennifer R Evans


Drusen are amorphous yellowish deposits beneath the sensory retina. People with drusen, particularly large drusen, are at higher risk of developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The most common complication in AMD is choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), the growth of new blood vessels in the centre of the macula. The risk of CNV is higher among people who are already affected by CNV in one eye.It has been observed clinically that laser photocoagulation of drusen leads to their disappearance and may prevent the occurrence of advanced disease (CNV or geographic atrophy) associated with visual loss. To examine the effectiveness and adverse effects of laser photocoagulation of drusen in AMD. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 August 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of laser treatment of drusen in AMD in which laser treatment had been compared with no intervention or sham treatment. Two types of trials were included. Some trials studied one eye of each participant (unilateral studies); other studies recruited participants with bilateral drusen and randomised one eye to photocoagulation or control and the fellow eye to the other group. Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We pooled data from unilateral and bilateral studies using a random-effects model. For the bilateral studies, we estimated the within-person correlation coefficient from one study and assumed it was valid for the others. The update of this review found two additional studies, totaling 11 studies that randomised 2159 participants (3580 eyes) and followed them up to two years, of which six studies (1454 participants) included people with one eye randomised to treatment and one to control. Studies were conducted in Australia, Europe and North America.Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was low, particularly for the larger studies and for the primary outcome development of CNV. Photocoagulation did not reduce the development of CNV at two years' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.46, 11 studies, 2159 participants (3580 eyes), high quality evidence). This estimate means that, given an overall occurrence of CNV of 8.3% in the control group, we estimated an absolute risk reduction by no more than 1.4% in the laser group, according to the lower CI limit. Only two studies investigated the effect on the development of geographic atrophy and could not show a difference, but estimates were imprecise (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.51, two studies, 148 participants (148 eyes), low quality evidence).Among secondary outcomes, photocoagulation led to drusen reduction (OR 9.16, 95% CI 6.28 to 13.4, three studies, 570 participants (944 eyes), high quality evidence) but was not shown to limit loss of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22, nine studies, 2002 participants (2386 eyes), moderate quality evidence).In a subgroup analysis, no difference could be shown for conventional visible (eight studies) versus subthreshold invisible (four studies) photocoagulation for the primary outcomes (P value = 0.29). The effect in the subthreshold group did not suggest a relevant benefit (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.98). No study used micropulse subthreshold photocoagulation.No other adverse effects (apart from development of CNV, geographic atrophy or visual loss) were reported. The trials included in this review confirm the clinical observation that laser photocoagulation of drusen leads to their disappearance. However, treatment does not result in a reduction in the risk of developing CNV, and was not shown to limit the occurrence of geographic atrophy or visual acuity loss.Ongoing studies are being conducted to assess whether the use of extremely short laser pulses (i.e. nanosecond laser treatment) cannot only lead to drusen regression but also prevent neovascular AMD.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 17%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Engineering 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 50 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 June 2022.
All research outputs
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 283,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 283,409 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 303 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.