↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters
patent
3 patents
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 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
Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004916.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey J Walline, Kristina Lindsley, Satyanarayana S Vedula, Susan A Cotter, Donald O Mutti, J. Daniel Twelker

Abstract

Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when looking at distant objects. Highly nearsighted people are at greater risk of several vision-threatening problems such as retinal detachments, choroidal atrophy, cataracts and glaucoma. Interventions that have been explored to slow the progression of myopia include bifocal spectacles, cycloplegic drops, intraocular pressure-lowering drugs, muscarinic receptor antagonists and contact lenses. The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the effectiveness of strategies to control progression of myopia in children.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 171 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 41 22%
Unknown 11 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Physics and Astronomy 5 3%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 18 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#346,701
of 13,903,017 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#928
of 10,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,171
of 206,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 509 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,903,017 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 206,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 509 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.