↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 48 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 52 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,336,317
of 25,381,783 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,890
of 12,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,230
of 246,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#172
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,783 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 246,152 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.