↓ Skip to main content

Laser‐assisted in‐situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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.
Title
Laser‐assisted in‐situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005135.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex J Shortt, Bruce DS Allan, Jennifer R Evans

Abstract

Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in light from distant objects being focused in front of the retina instead of directly on it. The two most commonly used surgical techniques to permanently correct myopia are photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 226 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 6%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 65 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Psychology 8 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 80 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,184,224
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,473
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,183
of 291,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 291,911 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.