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 |
Analysis of corneal esthesia in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.5935/0004-2749.20150096 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elmar Torres, Lucas Marcel Amaral Silva, Giovana Arlene Fioravanti Lui, Rachel Lopes Rodrigues Gomes, Adamo Lui-Netto |
| Abstract |
To quantitatively analyze corneal esthesia in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) surgery. Forty-five patients selected for PRK in one eye underwent corneal esthesia using a Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer preoperatively and 30 and 90 days postoperatively. Patients with a refractive diopter error of 4 or greater received intraoperative 0.02% mitomycin C for 20 s. Twenty-four (53.3%) of the 45 eyes received intraoperative 0.02% mitomycin. Decreased sensitivity was observed on postoperative day 30. By postoperative day 90, corneal esthesia had normalized but remained 14.9% lower than preoperative levels. In the mitomycin group, no recovery of corneal esthesia to normal sensitivity levels was observed. The mean esthesiometer level was 39.2 mm on postoperative day 90 (P<0.001). The results of the present study demonstrate recovery of corneal esthesia to normal levels at 90 days postoperatively in patients who did not receive mitomycin C. In patients administered mitomycin C, a 23.59% reduction in the corneal touch threshold was observed compared with preoperative levels indicating a failure of recovery to normal levels. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
#322
of 446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,548
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
#28
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 359,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.