↓ Skip to main content

Non‐surgical interventions for acute internal hordeolum

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
Non‐surgical interventions for acute internal hordeolum
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007742.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Lindsley, Jason J Nichols, Kay Dickersin

Abstract

A hordeolum is a common, painful inflammation of the eyelid margin that is usually caused by a bacterial infection. The infection affects oil glands of the eyelid and can be either internal or external. In many cases, the lesion drains spontaneously and resolves without treatment; however, the inflammation can spread to other ocular glands or tissues, and recurrences are common. If unresolved, an acute internal hordeolum can become chronic, or can develop into a chalazion. External hordeola, also known as styes, were not included in the scope of this review. The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness, and when possible, the safety, of non-surgical treatments for acute internal hordeola compared with observation or placebo. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2016; Issue 12)), MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R) Ovid Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1947 to December 2016), PubMed (1948 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS (January 1982 to December 2016)), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT; www.controlled-trials.com (last searched 26 July 2012)), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 December 2016. The selection criteria for this review included randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials of participants diagnosed with an acute internal hordeolum. Studies of participants with external hordeola (styes), chronic hordeola, or chalazia were excluded. Non-surgical interventions of interest included the use of hot or warm compresses, lid scrubs, antibiotics, or steroids compared with observation, placebo, or other active interventions. Two review authors independently assessed the references identified by electronic searches for inclusion in this review. No relevant studies were found. The reasons for exclusion were documented. No trials were identified for this review. Most of the references identified through our search reported on external hordeola or chronic internal hordeola. The few references specific to acute internal hordeola reported recommendations for treatment, were reports of interventional case series, case studies, or other types of observational study designs, and were published more than 20 years ago. We did not find any evidence for or against the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for the treatment of an internal hordeolum. Controlled clinical trials would be useful to determine which interventions are effective for the treatment of acute internal hordeola.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 19%
Student > Master 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Researcher 11 5%
Other 9 4%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 94 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Unspecified 4 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 99 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,269,624
of 25,389,116 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,708
of 12,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,652
of 425,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,389,116 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 12,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 425,558 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 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 70% of its contemporaries.