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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004916.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey J Walline, Kristina Lindsley, Satyanarayana S Vedula, Susan A Cotter, Donald O Mutti, J. Daniel Twelker |
| Abstract |
Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when looking at distant objects. Highly nearsighted people are at greater risk of several vision-threatening problems such as retinal detachments, choroidal atrophy, cataracts and glaucoma. Interventions that have been explored to slow the progression of myopia include bifocal spectacles, cycloplegic drops, intraocular pressure-lowering drugs, muscarinic receptor antagonists and contact lenses. The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the effectiveness of strategies to control progression of myopia in children. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 2 | 17% |
| Israel | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Colombia | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 289 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
| Researcher | 30 | 10% |
| Other | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 59 | 20% |
| Unknown | 59 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 128 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 43 | 14% |
| Unknown | 70 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 06 November 2021.
All research outputs
#728,796
of 25,746,891 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,347
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,822
of 248,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,746,891 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 248,818 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 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 95% of its contemporaries.