↓ Skip to main content

Topical corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy for bacterial keratitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 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
Topical corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy for bacterial keratitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005430.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Herretes, Xue Wang, Johann MG Reyes

Abstract

Bacterial keratitis is a serious ocular infectious disease that can lead to severe visual disability. Risk factors for bacterial corneal infection include contact lens wear, ocular surface disease, corneal trauma, and previous ocular or eyelid surgery. Topical antibiotics constitute the mainstay of treatment in cases of bacterial keratitis, whereas the use of topical corticosteroids as an adjunctive therapy to antibiotics remains controversial. Topical corticosteroids are usually used to control inflammation using the smallest amount of the drug. Their use requires optimal timing, concomitant antibiotics, and careful follow-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 232 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Student > Postgraduate 22 9%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 74 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 78 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 January 2022.
All research outputs
#7,299,281
of 26,240,084 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,675
of 13,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,758
of 268,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,240,084 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 13,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 268,672 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.