↓ Skip to main content

Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 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
Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008420.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nanavaty MA, Wang X, Shortt AJ

Abstract

Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) is a condition in which there is premature degeneration of corneal endothelial cells. When the number of endothelial cells is reduced to a significant degree, fluid begins to accumulate within the cornea. As a result, the cornea loses its transparency and the individual suffers a reduction in vision. The only successful surgical treatment for this condition is replacement of part or all of the cornea with healthy tissue from a donor. The established procedure, penetrating keratoplasty (PKP), has been used for many years and its safety and efficacy are well known. Endothelial keratoplasty (EK) techniques are relatively new surgical procedures and their safety and efficacy relative to PKP are uncertain.

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 %
United States 2 2%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 22%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 29 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 63%
Unspecified 10 10%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,531,385
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,422
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,512
of 193,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 193,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.