| Title |
Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008420.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mayank A Nanavaty, Xue Wang, Alex J Shortt |
| Abstract |
Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) is a condition in which there is premature degeneration of corneal endothelial cells. When the number of endothelial cells is reduced to a significant degree, fluid begins to accumulate within the cornea. As a result, the cornea loses its transparency and the individual suffers a reduction in vision. The only successful surgical treatment for this condition is replacement of part or all of the cornea with healthy tissue from a donor. The established procedure, penetrating keratoplasty (PKP), has been used for many years and its safety and efficacy are well known. Endothelial keratoplasty (EK) techniques are relatively new surgical procedures and their safety and efficacy relative to PKP are uncertain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 223 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 50 | 22% |
| Unknown | 60 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 97 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 73 | 32% |
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 21 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,430,408
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,035
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,291
of 330,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 330,892 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.