| Title |
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus vitrectomy with no peeling for idiopathic full‐thickness macular hole (FTMH)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009306.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kurt Spiteri Cornish, Noemi Lois, Neil Scott, Jennifer Burr, Jonathan Cook, Charles Boachie, Ramin Tadayoni, Morten la Cour, Ulrik Christensen, Alvin Kwok |
| Abstract |
Several observational studies have suggested the potential benefit of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling to treat idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). However, no strong evidence is available on the potential benefit(s) of this surgical manoeuvre and uncertainty remains among vitreoretinal surgeons about the indication for peeling the ILM, whether to use it in all cases or in long-standing and/or larger holes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 17% |
| Unknown | 44 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 48 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,754,127
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,378
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,749
of 210,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 210,990 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.