↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration for preventing retinal detachment

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Interventions for asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration for preventing retinal detachment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003170.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilkinson CP, Wilkinson, Charles P

Abstract

Asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration are visible lesions that are risk factors for later retinal detachment. Retinal detachments occur when fluid in the vitreous cavity passes through tears or holes in the retina and separates the retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. Creation of an adhesion surrounding retinal breaks and lattice degeneration, with laser photocoagulation or cryotherapy, has been recommended as an effective means of preventing retinal detachment. This therapy is of value in the management of retinal tears associated with the symptoms of flashes and floaters and persistent vitreous traction upon the retina in the region of the retinal break, because such symptomatic retinal tears are associated with a high rate of progression to retinal detachment. Retinal tears and holes unassociated with acute symptoms and lattice degeneration are significantly less likely to be the sites of retinal breaks that are responsible for later retinal detachment. Nevertheless, treatment of these lesions frequently is recommended, in spite of the fact that the effectiveness of this therapy is unproven.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 20%
Student > Postgraduate 11 20%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 82%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,811,022
of 8,320,311 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,031
of 8,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,228
of 189,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,320,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 189,020 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.