↓ Skip to main content

Early light reduction for preventing retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Early light reduction for preventing retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000122.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eliane C Jorge, Edson N Jorge, Regina P El Dib

Abstract

Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a complex condition of the developing retinal blood vessels and is one of the leading causes of preventable childhood blindness. Several risk factors for ROP have been studied over the past 50 years. Among them, general immaturity (low birth weight and low gestational age) and prolonged oxygen therapy have been consistently related to disease onset. However, it is understood that the progression of the disease is multifactorial and may be associated with others risk factors, such as multiple gestation, apnoea, intracranial haemorrhage, anaemia, sepsis, prolonged mechanical ventilation, multiple transfusions and light exposure. Furthermore, the precise role of these individual factors in the development of the disease has not yet been well established.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 25%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 18 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,681,095
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,930
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,609
of 152,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 61% 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 152,667 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 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 61% of its contemporaries.