↓ Skip to main content

Laser Peripheral Iridotomy in Primary Angle Closure A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

Overview of attention for article published in Ophthalmology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Laser Peripheral Iridotomy in Primary Angle Closure A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
Published in
Ophthalmology, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.01.015
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To examine the efficacy and complications of laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in subjects with primary angle closure (PAC). Literature searches in the PubMed and Cochrane databases were last conducted in August 2017 and yielded 300 unique citations. Of these, 36 met the inclusion criteria and were rated according to the strength of evidence; 6 articles were rated level I, 11 articles were rated level II, and 19 articles were rated level III. Reported outcomes were change in angle width, effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) control, disease progression, and complications. Most of the studies (29/36, 81%) included only Asian subjects. Angle width (measured by gonioscopy, ultrasound biomicroscopy, and anterior segment OCT) increased after LPI in all stages of angle closure. Gonioscopically defined persistent angle closure after LPI was reported in 2% to 57% of eyes across the disease spectrum. Baseline factors associated with persistent angle closure included narrower angle and parameters representing nonpupillary block mechanisms of angle closure, such as a thick iris, an anteriorly positioned ciliary body, or a greater lens vault. After LPI, further treatment to control IOP was reported in 0%-8% of PAC suspect (PACS), 42% to 67% of PAC, 21% to 47% of acute PAC (APAC), and 83%-100% of PAC glaucoma (PACG) eyes. Progression to PACG ranged from 0% to 0.3% per year in PACS and 0% to 4% per year in PAC. Complications after LPI included IOP spike (8-17 mmHg increase from baseline in 6%-10%), dysphotopsia (2%-11%), anterior chamber bleeding (30%-41%), and cataract progression (23%-39%). Laser peripheral iridotomy increases angle width in all stages of primary angle closure and has a good safety profile. Most PACS eyes do not receive further intervention, whereas many PAC and APAC eyes, and most PACG eyes, receive further treatment. Progression to PACG is uncommon in PACS and PAC. There are limited data on the comparative efficacy of LPI versus other treatments for the various stages of angle closure; 1 randomized controlled trial each demonstrated superiority of cataract surgery over LPI in APAC and of clear lens extraction over LPI in PACG or PAC with IOP above 30 mmHg.

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 2 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 135 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 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 9 7%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 34 25%
Unknown 43 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 49 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,897,031
of 27,969,864 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology
#962
of 7,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,706
of 350,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology
#16
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,969,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 350,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.