↓ Skip to main content

Punctal plugs versus artificial tears for treating primary Sjögren’s syndrome with keratoconjunctivitis SICCA: a comparative observation of their effects on visual function

Overview of attention for article published in Rheumatology International, May 2013
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
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Punctal plugs versus artificial tears for treating primary Sjögren’s syndrome with keratoconjunctivitis SICCA: a comparative observation of their effects on visual function
Published in
Rheumatology International, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00296-013-2769-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weiqiang Qiu, Ziyuan Liu, Mingxin Ao, Xuemin Li, Wei Wang

Abstract

To compare the effects of treatment with punctal plugs versus artificial tears on visual function for primary Sjögren's syndrome with dry eye. Forty-two eyes of 42 patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome were enrolled and were allocated randomly into artificial tears (AT) group and punctal plugs (PP) group. Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) was used, and fluorescent staining for tear film break-up time (BUT), the Schirmer test I (STI) and contrast sensitivity was performed before treatment and was repeated 3 months after treatment. A follow-up of 3 months was achieved in 40 eyes of 40 patients, including 19 eyes in artificial tears group and 21 eyes in punctal plugs group. Statistically significant improvements were observed in the OSDI scores (AT: 52.6 ± 5.7, 15.9 ± 4.2; PP: 55.8 ± 4.9, 15.1 ± 4.2), corneal fluorescein staining scores (AT: 2.60 ± 1.76, 0.30 ± 0.57; PP: 1.91 ± 1.60, 0.09 ± 0.29), STI (AT: 3.85 ± 2.03, 8.95 ± 2.72; PP: 3.36 ± 1.62, 11.41 ± 2.65), and BUT (AT: 2.60 ± 1.39, 6.00 ± 1.81; PP: 2.27 ± 1.12, 7.82 ± 1.84) after treatment compared to those of pre-treatment. The values of STI (AT: 5.10 ± 1.80; PP: 8.05 ± 1.53) and BUT (AT: 3.40 ± 1.31; PP: 5.68 ± 1.13) in punctal plugs group were significantly more improved than those in the artificial tears group. The medium- and high-level frequencies contrast sensitivities were greatly improved in simulated daylight, night, and glare disability conditions after treatment with artificial tears and punctal plugs. However, the changes in contrast sensitivity did not significantly differ between groups. Both artificial tears and punctal plugs relieved dry eye symptoms, repaired corneal lesions, enhanced tear film stability, and improved contrast sensitivity. Punctal plugs could improve tear film stability and elongate the BUT better than artificial tears.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 35%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 38%
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 26 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,753,163
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#1,455
of 2,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,924
of 193,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#22
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 193,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.