↓ Skip to main content

Glaucoma-Related Adverse Events in the First 5 Years After Unilateral Cataract Removal in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, August 2015
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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
169 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Glaucoma-Related Adverse Events in the First 5 Years After Unilateral Cataract Removal in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, August 2015
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.1329
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon F. Freedman, Michael J. Lynn, Allen D. Beck, Erick D. Bothun, Faruk H. Örge, Scott R. Lambert

Abstract

Glaucoma-related adverse events constitute major sight-threatening complications of cataract removal in infancy, yet their relationship to aphakia vs primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation remains unsettled. To identify and characterize cases of glaucoma and glaucoma-related adverse events (glaucoma + glaucoma suspect) among children in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study by the age of 5 years. A multicenter randomized clinical trial of 114 infants with unilateral congenital cataract in referral centers who were between ages 1 and 6 months at surgery. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. This secondary analysis was conducted from December 23, 2004, to November 13, 2013. Participants were randomized at cataract surgery to either primary IOL or no IOL implantation (contact lens). Standardized definitions of glaucoma and glaucoma suspect were created for the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study and applied for surveillance and diagnosis. Development of glaucoma and glaucoma + glaucoma suspect in operated on eyes for children up to age 5 years, plus intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and axial length at age 5 years. Product limit estimates of the risk for glaucoma and glaucoma + glaucoma suspect at 4.8 years after surgery were 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) and 31% (95% CI, 24%-41%), respectively. The contact lens and IOL groups were not significantly different for either outcome: glaucoma (hazard ratio [HR], 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0; P = .62) and glaucoma + glaucoma suspect (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.5; P = .58). Younger (vs older) age at surgery conferred an increased risk for glaucoma (26% vs 9%, respectively) at 4.8 years after surgery (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-8.3), and smaller (vs larger) corneal diameter showed an increased risk for glaucoma + glaucoma suspect (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-5.0). Age and corneal diameter were significantly positively correlated. Glaucoma was predominantly open angle (19 of 20 cases, 95%), most eyes received medication (19 of 20, 95%), and 8 of 20 eyes (40%) underwent surgery. These results suggest that glaucoma-related adverse events are common and increase between ages 1 and 5 years in infants after unilateral cataract removal at 1 to 6 months of age; primary IOL placement does not mitigate their risk but surgery at a younger age increases the risk. Longer follow-up of these children may further characterize risk factors, long-term outcomes, potential differences between eyes having primary IOL vs aphakia, and optimal timing of unilateral congenital cataract removal. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00212134.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 19 16%
Other 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 42 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 February 2022.
All research outputs
#5,405,155
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#2,154
of 6,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,578
of 276,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#21
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 6,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 276,425 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.