↓ Skip to main content

The 2016 Bowman Lecture Conjunctival curses: scarring conjunctivitis 30 years on

Overview of attention for article published in Eye, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
The 2016 Bowman Lecture Conjunctival curses: scarring conjunctivitis 30 years on
Published in
Eye, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/eye.2016.284
Pubmed ID
Authors

J K Dart

Abstract

This review is in two sections. The first section summarises 35 conditions, both common and infrequent, causing cicatrising conjunctivitis. Guidelines for making a diagnosis are given together with the use of diagnostic tests, including direct and indirect immunofluorescence, and their interpretation. The second section evaluates our knowledge of ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid, which is the commonest cause of cicatrizing conjunctivitis in most developed countries. The clinical characteristics, demographics, and clinical signs of the disease are described. This is followed by a review and re-evaluation of the pathogenesis of conjunctival inflammation in mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP), resulting in a revised hypothesis of the autoimmune mechanisms causing inflammation in ocular MMP. The relationship between inflammation and scarring in MMP conjunctiva is described. Recent research, describing the role of aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) and retinoic acid (RA) in both the initiation and perpetuation of profibrotic activity in MMP conjunctival fibroblasts is summarised and the potential for antifibrotic therapy, using ALDH inhibition, is discussed. The importance of the management of the ocular surface in MMP is briefly summarised. This is followed with the rationale for the use of systemic immunomodulatory therapy, currently the standard of care for patients with active ocular MMP. The evidence for the use of these drugs is summarised and guidelines given for their use. Finally, the areas for research and innovation in the next decade are reviewed including the need for better diagnostics, markers of disease activity, and the potential for biological and topical therapies for both inflammation and scarring.Eye advance online publication, 20 January 2017; doi:10.1038/eye.2016.284.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 8 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 33 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,870,599
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Eye
#3,332
of 4,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,309
of 417,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye
#42
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 417,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.