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 |
A Study on the Effectiveness of 650-nm Red-Light Feeding Instruments in the Control of Myopia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ophthalmic Research, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000529819 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhi-Hong Lin, Zheng-Yang Tao, Ze-Feng Kang, Hong-Wei Deng |
| Abstract |
This study analyzed the effectiveness of 650-nm red-light feeding instruments in the control of myopia. In this study, 164 school-aged participants diagnosed with myopia in the city of Shenzhen were enrolled in a red-light feeding instrument study. Of these, 41 were enrolled in the mild-to-moderate myopia group that received red-light feeding (RLMM group), 65 were enrolled in the mild-to-moderate myopia group that received single-vision spectacle treatment (SVSMM group), and 58 were included in the severe-myopia group that received red-light feeding (RLS group). After the baseline values of the three groups were matched, the right-eye data were used for statistical analysis. The average return-visit time of each group was 60.42 days, and changes in the observation indexes before treatment and after follow-up treatment were compared. As the primary outcome, the axial length changes in the right eye of the SVSMM group (0.08 ± 0.40 mm), the RLMM group (-0.03 ± 0.11 mm), and the RLS group (-0.07 ± 0.11 mm) were compared and showed a statistical result of P < 0.001. The study results verified that red light had a noticeable effect on the control of myopia and that low-level red-light therapy played a vital role in the treatment of severe myopia. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
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 03 May 2023.
All research outputs
#15,935,090
of 23,660,680 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmic Research
#383
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,601
of 414,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmic Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,660,680 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 414,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them