↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for postvitrectomy cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Surgery for postvitrectomy cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006366.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana V Do, Stephen Gichuhi, Satyanarayana S Vedula, Barbara S Hawkins

Abstract

Cataract formation or acceleration can occur after intraocular surgery, especially following vitrectomy, a surgical technique for removing the vitreous that is used in the treatment of many disorders that affect the posterior segment of the eye. The underlying problem that led to vitrectomy may limit the benefit from removal of the cataractous lens. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgery versus no surgery for postvitrectomy cataract with respect to visual acuity, quality of life, and other outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 May 2017), Embase.com (1947 to 17 May 2017), PubMed (1946 to 17 May 2017), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS) (January 1982 to 17 May 2017), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com); last searched May 2013, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 17 May 2017, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 17 May 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that had compared surgery versus no surgery to remove the lens from eyes of adults in which cataracts had developed following vitrectomy. Two review authors independently screened the search results according to the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that had compared surgery versus no surgery to remove the lens from eyes of adults in which cataracts had developed following vitrectomy. There is no evidence from RCTs or quasi-RCTs on which to base clinical recommendations for surgery for postvitrectomy cataract. There is a clear need for RCTs to address this evidence gap. Such trials should stratify participants by their age, the retinal disorder leading to vitrectomy, and the status of the underlying disease process in the contralateral eye. Outcomes assessed in such trials may include changes (both gains and losses) of visual acuity, quality of life, and adverse events such as posterior capsular rupture and retinal detachment. Both short-term (six-month) and long-term (one- or two-year) outcomes should be examined.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Computer Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,461,444
of 12,689,756 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,499
of 10,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,128
of 344,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,689,756 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 344,893 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.