↓ Skip to main content

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008811.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus Ang, Jennifer R Evans, Jod S Mehta

Abstract

Age-related cataract is the opacification of the lens, which occurs as a result of denaturation of lens proteins. Age-related cataract remains the leading cause of blindness globally, except in the most developed countries. A key question is what is the best way of removing the lens, especially in lower income settings.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 2 2%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Unspecified 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 28 21%

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 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
#9,878,608
of 16,094,734 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,550
of 11,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,901
of 309,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#221
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,094,734 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 11,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 309,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 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.