↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration for preventing retinal detachment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration for preventing retinal detachment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003170.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles P Wilkinson

Abstract

Asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration are visible lesions that are risk factors for later retinal detachment. Retinal detachments occur when fluid in the vitreous cavity passes through tears or holes in the retina and separates the retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. Creation of an adhesion surrounding retinal breaks and lattice degeneration, with laser photocoagulation or cryotherapy, has been recommended as an effective means of preventing retinal detachment. This therapy is of value in the management of retinal tears associated with the symptoms of flashes and floaters and persistent vitreous traction upon the retina in the region of the retinal break, because such symptomatic retinal tears are associated with a high rate of progression to retinal detachment. Retinal tears and holes unassociated with acute symptoms and lattice degeneration are significantly less likely to be the sites of retinal breaks that are responsible for later retinal detachment. Nevertheless, treatment of these lesions frequently is recommended, in spite of the fact that the effectiveness of this therapy is unproven.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 29 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,491,591
of 18,217,263 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,719
of 11,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,425
of 210,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#143
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,217,263 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 210,565 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 77% 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.