↓ Skip to main content

Argus II retinal prosthesis system: a review of patient selection criteria, surgical considerations, and post-operative outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2018
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Argus II retinal prosthesis system: a review of patient selection criteria, surgical considerations, and post-operative outcomes
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/opth.s137525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Avni P Finn, Dilraj S Grewal, Lejla Vajzovic

Abstract

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a group of heterogeneous inherited retinal degenerative disorders characterized by progressive rod and cone dysfunction and ensuing photoreceptor loss. Many patients suffer from legal blindness by their 40s or 50s. Artificial vision is considered once patients have lost all vision to the point of bare light perception or no light perception. The Argus II retinal prosthesis system is one such artificial vision device approved for patients with RP. This review focuses on the factors important for patient selection. Careful pre-operative screening, counseling, and management of patient expectations are critical for the successful implantation and visual rehabilitation of patients with the Argus II device.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 26%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 6 6%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 27 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,263,639
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#370
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,384
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 342,877 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.