| Title |
Spectacle correction versus no spectacles for prevention of strabismus in hyperopic children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007738.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Jones‐Jordan, Xue Wang, Roberta W Scherer, Donald O Mutti |
| Abstract |
Hyperopia (far-sightedness) in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus (eye misalignment). Strabismus makes it difficult for the eyes to work together and may result in symptoms of asthenopia (eye strain) and intermittent diplopia (double vision), and makes near work tasks difficult to complete. Untreated strabismus may result in the development of amblyopia (lazy eye). The prescription of spectacles to correct hyperopic refractive error is believed to prevent the development of strabismus. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 19% |
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,876,437
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,577
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,352
of 247,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 226 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 88th 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 57% 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 247,524 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 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 58% of its contemporaries.