↓ Skip to main content

Crescent-Shaped Retinal Defects Associated With Membrane Peeling With a Diamond-Dusted Membrane Scraper.

Overview of attention for article published in Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Crescent-Shaped Retinal Defects Associated With Membrane Peeling With a Diamond-Dusted Membrane Scraper.
Published in
Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina, January 2016
DOI 10.3928/23258160-20151214-16
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Membrane peeling is a common procedure for treating diseases of the vitreoretinal interface, such as macular holes and epiretinal membranes; however, potential complications include inner retinal dimples and inner retinal optic neuropathy. The current case series describes five patients who developed large, crescentic inner retinal defects after membrane peeling with diamond-dusted membrane scrapers. The changes visualized by en face optical coherence tomography were outside the fovea and followed the expected contours of membrane scrapers being used intraoperatively. The visual acuities at the last follow-up were 20/40 or better in all five patients. [Ophthalmic Surg Imaging Lasers Retina. 2016;47:90-93.].

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 3 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 9 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 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 22%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Unknown 5 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,308,355
of 27,383,327 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina
#755
of 1,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,804
of 406,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,383,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,382 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 406,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.