↓ Skip to main content

Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus vitrectomy with no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus vitrectomy with no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009306.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurt Spiteri Cornish, Noemi Lois, Neil Scott, Jennifer Burr, Jonathan Cook, Charles Boachie, Ramin Tadayoni, Morten la Cour, Ulrik Christensen, Alvin Kwok

Abstract

Several observational studies have suggested the potential benefit of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling to treat idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). However, no strong evidence is available on the potential benefit(s) of this surgical manoeuvre and uncertainty remains among vitreoretinal surgeons about the indication for peeling the ILM, whether to use it in all cases or in long-standing and/or larger holes. 

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 12 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 August 2013.
All research outputs
#1,245,518
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,500
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,731
of 148,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 148,572 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 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 66% of its contemporaries.