↓ Skip to main content

Involutional entropion

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in ophthalmology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
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.
Title
Involutional entropion
Published in
Current opinion in ophthalmology, July 2015
DOI 10.1097/icu.0000000000000186
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus M. Marcet, Paul O. Phelps, Jimmy S.M. Lai

Abstract

To review current surgical practices for the repair of lower eyelid involutional entropion with a focus on recent studies. A shorter axial length, which may be interrelated with exophthalmometry, correlates with involutional entropion. Although it is known Asian eyelids more frequently develop involutional entropion, there is greater awareness of customized surgical approaches. Minimally invasive techniques for strengthening the action of lower eyelid retractors, such as everting sutures and transconjunctival approaches, continue to be refined and studied. Such surgery is efficacious in patients who do not have horizontal laxity. However, there is consistent evidence that in the presence of laxity the recurrence rate is higher if the eyelid is not horizontally tightened. By knowing of the demographics and factors associated with involutional entropion, clinicians can have better understanding of the condition and the patients most at risk. There is not sufficient evidence to determine whether a short axial length is an independent-risk factor for entropion. Advances in surgical technique have led to continued interest in minimally invasive approaches. Precision in addressing individual patients' underlying anatomic abnormalities is important.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Other 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Unspecified 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 47%
Unspecified 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 15 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 September 2022.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in ophthalmology
#265
of 1,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,561
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in ophthalmology
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,221 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 62% of its contemporaries.