| Title |
Comparison of efficacy between coaxial microincision and standard-incision phacoemulsification in patients with age-related cataracts: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-017-0661-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lijun Wang, Xiao Xiao, Lin Zhao, Yi Zhang, Jianming Wang, Aiyi Zhou, Jianchao Wang, Qian Wu |
| Abstract |
Incision size plays a critical role in the efficacy of cataract surgery, but the available evidence on ideal incision size is inconsistent. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of coaxial microincisional phacoemulsification surgery (MICS) compared with that of standard-incision phacoemulsification surgery (SICS) in patients with age-related cataracts. The Cochrane Library (Wiley Online Library), PubMed, Medline, National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were searched to identify reports of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MICS to SICS for the treatment of age-related cataracts. The outcomes of interest included surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), central corneal thickness (CCT), endothelial cell count (ECC), endothelial cell count loss (ECC Loss %), and average ultrasonic energy (AVE). Eleven RCT studies were included in this meta-analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed in EPT (Z = 1.29, P > 0.05), CCT (1 day: Z = 1.37, P > 0.05; 7 days: Z = 0.75, P > 0.05; 30 days: Z = 0.38, P > 0.05; 90 days: Z = 0.29, P > 0.05), ECC (7 days: Z = 1.13, P > 0.05; 30 days: Z = 1.42, P > 0.05) or ECC Loss % (7 days: Z = 0.24, P > 0.05; 30 days: Z = 0.06, P > 0.05; 90 days: Z = 0.10, P > 0.05) between MICS and SICS. However, statistically significant differences were found in AVE (Z = 4.19, P < 0.0001) and SIA (1 day: Z = 10.33, P < 0.00001; 7 days: Z = 10.71, P < 0.00001; 30 days: Z = 10.95, P < 0.00001; 90 days: Z = 2.21,- P < 0.01) between MICS and SICS. Compared with SICS, MICS can reduce short-term and long-term SIA, but it does not differ in safety outcomes or in the time required for surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,372,208
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#638
of 2,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,120
of 441,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#18
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,401 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. 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 441,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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 56% of its contemporaries.