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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Phacoemulsification with hydrodelineation and OVD-assisted hydrodissection in posterior polar cataract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-018-0845-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xia Hua, Yongxiao Dong, Jianying Du, Jin Yang, Xiaoyong Yuan |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the results and complications of phacoemulsification with hydrodelineation and ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD)-assisted hydrodissection for posterior polar cataract (PPC). Medical records of 24 eyes from 17 patients with clinical diagnosis of PPC, who underwent phacoemulsification with hydrodelineation and OVD-assisted hydrodissection, were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence of posterior capsule rupture (PCR) was 16.67% (4/24): 2 cases occurred during epinucleus removal, and 2 cases occurred during OVD removal after the implantation of the intraocular lens into the bag. No nucleus piece or lens materials dropped into the vitreous during cataract surgery, and no obvious postoperative complications were found during follow-up. All patients had improved best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 1 month postoperatively. OVD-assisted hydrodissection could be an effective technique in phacoemulsification to reduce the incidence of PCR and achieve satisfactory postoperative outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 23% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 55% |
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 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,539,088
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#841
of 2,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,562
of 326,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,418 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 326,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.