↓ Skip to main content

Excimer laser refractive surgery versus phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of moderate to high myopia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Excimer laser refractive surgery versus phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of moderate to high myopia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007679.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allon Barsam, Bruce DS Allan

Abstract

Myopia is a condition in which the focusing power (refraction) of the eye is greater than that required for clear distance vision. There are two main types of surgical correction for moderate to high myopia; excimer laser and phakic intraocular lenses (IOLs). Excimer laser refractive surgery for myopia works by removing corneal stroma to lessen the refractive power of the cornea and to bring the image of a viewed object into focus onto the retina rather than in front of it. Phakic IOLs for the treatment of myopia work by diverging light rays so that the image of a viewed object is brought into focus onto the retina rather than in front of the retina. They can be placed either in the anterior chamber of the eye in front of the iris or in the posterior chamber of the eye between the iris and the natural lens.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 95 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,182,961
of 14,242,646 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,726
of 10,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,090
of 193,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,242,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 193,426 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.