↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for recurrent corneal erosions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for recurrent corneal erosions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001861.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie L Watson, Ming-Han H Lee, Nigel H Barker

Abstract

Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some patients continue to suffer when such therapy fails and once resolved further episodes of recurrent erosion may occur. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 56%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 12 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,089,198
of 14,021,570 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,046
of 10,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,880
of 153,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,021,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 153,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.