↓ Skip to main content

Predisposing Factors and Clinical-Microbiological Profile of Neonatal Corneal Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Ocular Immunology & Inflammation, May 2024
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
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
Predisposing Factors and Clinical-Microbiological Profile of Neonatal Corneal Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Analysis
Published in
Ocular Immunology & Inflammation, May 2024
DOI 10.1080/09273948.2024.2346246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alireza Peyman, Behrouz Rahimi, Mahsa Pourmahdi-Boroujeni, Majid Mirmohammadkhani, Asieh Aslani, Mohammad Soleimani, Mahdi Abounoori, Mohsen Pourazizi

Abstract

To provide a comprehensive overview of predisposing factors and clinical-microbiological profile of neonatal corneal ulcer. The literature search was undertaken in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on published papers from inception to May 31, 2023. The included articles were independently assessed for methodological quality using a Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Weighted analysis was utilized, assigning a weight of one to each case report and a weight equivalent to the sample size for the case series/original studies. We included 34 relevant case reports/series and one original study. Seventy-four neonates were enrolled with a boy-to-girl ratio of 1.3:1 and a median age of 17 days (1-27 days). Prematurity and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) care (21.6%), congenital horizontal tarsal kink (13.5%), neonatal herpes infection (13.5%), congenital entropion (5.4%), and jaundice (5.4%) were the most common potential risk factors and coexisting conditions. Microbiology evaluation showed positive results in 53.8% (21/39 cases). Viral and bacterial infections were the most common cause, followed by fungal infections. Herpes virus (18.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (6.7%) were the most prevalent causative agents. Negative microbiology was significantly more common in neonates with structural abnormalities (14.9%) compared to others (6.8%) (p = 0.01). Based on the findings of reported studies, this systematic review has increased awareness of the risk factors and etiologies that lead to developing corneal ulcers in neonates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 May 2024.
All research outputs
#14,926,708
of 25,887,951 outputs
Outputs from Ocular Immunology & Inflammation
#314
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,743
of 164,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ocular Immunology & Inflammation
#2
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,887,951 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 164,751 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 94% of its contemporaries.