↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005135.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex J Shortt, Bruce DS Allan, Jennifer R Evans

Abstract

Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in light from distant objects being focused in front of the retina instead of directly on it. The two most commonly used surgical techniques to permanently correct myopia are photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Israel 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 158 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Bachelor 27 17%
Researcher 26 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Psychology 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 36 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#729,096
of 17,619,075 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,832
of 11,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,771
of 256,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,619,075 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 256,833 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.