↓ Skip to main content

Psychosocial interventions for improving quality of life outcomes in adults undergoing strabismus surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Psychosocial interventions for improving quality of life outcomes in adults undergoing strabismus surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010092.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly MacKenzie, Joanne Hancox, Hayley McBain, Daniel G Ezra, Gill Adams, Stanton Newman

Abstract

Strabismus, also known as squint, can have a debilitating effect on a person's self-esteem, quality of life and mood, as well as increase their feelings of social anxiety and avoidance behaviour. Strabismus surgery can improve both the alignment of a person's eyes and, in appropriate cases, relieve symptoms such as double vision. However, evidence indicates that not all patients experience a meaningful improvement in their quality of life postsurgery. Pre-surgical psychosocial interventions have been found to improve patient reported outcomes in other long-term conditions. To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions versus no intervention on quality of life and psychosocial outcomes in adults undergoing strabismus surgery. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to February 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to February 2016), PsycINFO (January 1967 to February 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 February 2016.We also manually searched the British Orthoptic Journal, proceedings of the European Strabismological Association (ESA), International Strabismological Association (ISA) and published transactions from the meetings of European Strabismus Association (ESA) and American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS). These were searched from 1980 to present. We also carried out handsearches of Psychology and Health, British Journal of Health Psychology, Health Psychology and Annals of Behavioral Medicine. We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, in which effectiveness of a psychosocial intervention had been evaluated in patients due to undergo strabismus surgery. Two review authors independently reviewed the search results for eligibility. None of the 88 studies we identified met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. We found no evidence that evaluated the impact of psychosocial interventions on patients undergoing squint surgery. We believe future research should focus on developing and evaluating the use of targeted psychosocial interventions to improve a patient's quality of life after strabismus surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Psychology 6 11%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 30%

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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,099,279
of 12,680,099 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,860
of 10,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,082
of 264,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,680,099 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 10,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 264,353 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 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.