Yen C Hsia, Caitlin A Moe, Thomas M Lietman, Jeremy D Keenan, Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer
Abstract
To assess the current opinion and practice patterns from cornea experts regarding the benefit of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for infectious keratitis (IK).
An international survey was distributed to corneal specialists via an internet survey. The survey data collected were analysed with descriptive statistics.
A survey was sent to 190 recipients, and 29 (15%) respondents completed the survey with an average of 7 years' experience using CXL. A majority of respondents (66%) used CXL to treat IK due to bacterial, fungal, protozoan or unknown aetiology. Main indications to use CXL as adjuvant therapy were worsening infiltrate diameter or depth despite therapy (74%), followed by antibiotic resistance (68%), corneal thinning (53%), poor compliance with medication (26%) and other reasons (21%). Most respondents felt CXL would be at least moderately helpful as an adjuvant therapy for bacterial (96%) or fungal (75%) keratitis; about half (46%) thought it would be helpful for acanthamoeba keratitis. As sole therapy, fewer respondents believed CXL would be at least moderately helpful to treat bacterial (75%), fungal (58%) and acanthamoeba (43%) keratitis.
The survey offered insights into current expert practices and opinions of using CXL as therapy for IK. The results of this survey serve to guide in the design of future clinical studies.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
10%
Unspecified
1
3%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
3%
Other
1
3%
Unknown
6
21%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open Ophthalmology
#180
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,269
of 333,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open Ophthalmology
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 333,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.
