↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis versus pars plana vitrectomy for vitreous floaters

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

13 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
2 Wikipedia pages


20 Dimensions

Readers on

96 Mendeley
Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis versus pars plana vitrectomy for vitreous floaters
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011676.pub2
Pubmed ID

Jan Kokavec, Zhichao Wu, Justin C Sherwin, Alan JS Ang, Ghee Soon Ang


The vitreous is the clear jelly of the eye and contains fine strands of proteins. Throughout life the composition of this vitreous changes, which causes the protein strands in it to bundle together and scatter light before it reaches the retina. Individuals perceive the shadows cast by these protein bundles as 'floaters'. Some people are so bothered by floaters that treatment is required to control their symptoms. Two major interventions for floaters include Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis and vitrectomy. Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis involves using laser energy to fragment the vitreous opacities via a non-invasive approach. Vitrectomy involves the surgical replacement of the patient's vitreous (including the symptomatic vitreous floaters) with an inert and translucent balanced salt solution, through small openings in the pars plana. To compare the effectiveness and safety of Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis to pars plana vitrectomy for symptomatic vitreous floaters. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 January 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 17 January 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 17 January 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 17 January 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 17 January 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 17 January 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We also searched conference proceedings to identify additional studies. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis to pars plana vitrectomy for treatment of symptomatic floaters. We planned to use methods recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome we planned to measure was change in vision-related quality of life from baseline to 12 months, as determined by a vision-related quality of life questionnaire. The secondary outcomes we planned to measure were best corrected logMAR or Snellen visual acuity at 12 months for the treated eye(s) and costs. Adverse outcomes we planned to record were the occurrence of sight-threatening complications by 12 months (asymptomatic retinal tears, symptomatic retinal tears, retinal detachment, cataract formation, and endophthalmitis). No studies met the inclusion criteria of this review. There are currently no RCTs that compare Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis with pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of symptomatic floaters. Properly designed RCTs are needed to evaluate the treatment outcomes from the interventions described. We recommend future studies randomise participants to either a Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis group or a vitrectomy group, with participants in each group assigned to either receive treatment or a sham intervention. Future studies should follow participants at six months and 12 months after the intervention. Also they should use best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using an Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart read at 4 metres, vision-related quality of life (VRQOL), and adverse outcomes as the outcome measures of the trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Engineering 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 36 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 02 December 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,944,828 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 280,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,944,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 280,192 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.