↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
67 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.
Article details
Title
Effect of Cornea Preservation Time on Success of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, December 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.4989
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Demonstrating that success of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty is similar across donor cornea preservation times (PTs) could increase the donor pool. To determine whether the 3-year rate of graft success using corneal donor tissue preserved 8 to 14 days is noninferior to that of donor tissue preserved 7 days or less. A multicenter, double-masked, randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted from April 16, 2012, to June 5, 2017, at 40 clinical sites (70 surgeons) in the United States, with donor corneas provided by 23 US eye banks. A total of 1090 individuals (1330 study eyes) underwent Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (1255 eyes [94.4%] for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy). Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with random assignment of a donor cornea with a PT of 7 days or less (0-7d PT) or 8 to 14 days (8-14d PT). Graft success at 3 years. Of the 1090 participants (1330 study eyes; 60.2% women and 39.8% men; median age at enrollment, 70 years [range, 42-90 years]), the 3-year cumulative probability of graft success was 95.3% (95% CI, 93.6%-96.9%) in the 0-7d PT group and 92.1% (95% CI, 89.9%-94.2%) in the 8-14d PT group (difference, 3.2%). The upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI on the difference was 5.4%, exceeding the prespecified noninferiority limit of 4%. The difference was mostly owing to more primary donor failures in the 8-14d PT group, with the conditional probability of failure after the first month being 2.4% in the 0-7d PT group and 3.1% in the 8-14d PT group. In preplanned secondary analyses, longer PT was associated with a lower rate of graft success (unadjusted hazard ratio for graft failure per additional day of PT, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.18; P = .008 [PT analyzed as days]), with success rates of 96.5% (95% CI, 92.3%-98.4%) for PT of 4 days or less, 94.9% (95% CI, 92.5%-96.6%) for PT of 5 to 7 days, 93.8% (95% CI, 91.0%-95.8%) for PT of 8 to 11 days, and 89.3% (95% CI, 84.4%-92.7%) for PT of 12 to 14 days (P = .01 [PT analyzed as categorical variable]). The 3-year success rate in eyes undergoing Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty was high irrespective of PT. However, the study was unable to conclude that the success rate with donor corneas preserved 8 to 14 days was similar to that of corneas preserved 7 days or less with respect to the prespecified noninferiority limit. Although longer PT was associated with a lower success rate, the difference in rates was small when PT was less than 12 days. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01537393.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 37 55%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 39 58%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. 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 24 November 2022.
All research outputs
#483,486
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#253
of 4,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,333
of 492,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#6
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 492,227 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 101 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.