↓ Skip to main content

Occlusion for stimulus deprivation amblyopia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Occlusion for stimulus deprivation amblyopia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005136.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aileen Antonio-Santos, Satyanarayana S Vedula, Sarah R Hatt, Christine Powell

Abstract

Stimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the passage of light secondary to a condition such as cataract. The obstruction prevents formation of a clear image on the retina. SDA can be resistant to treatment, leading to poor visual prognosis. SDA probably constitutes less than 3% of all amblyopia cases, although precise estimates of prevalence are unknown. In developed countries, most patients present under the age of one year; in less developed parts of the world patients are likely to be older at the time of presentation. The mainstay of treatment is removal of the cataract and then occlusion of the better-seeing eye, but regimens vary, can be difficult to execute, and traditionally are believed to lead to disappointing results.

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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Other 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 22%

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 17 July 2014.
All research outputs
#9,157,307
of 14,946,786 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,184
of 11,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,663
of 189,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,946,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. 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 189,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.