↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Adjustable versus non-adjustable sutures for strabismus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

9 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


18 Dimensions

Readers on

61 Mendeley
Adjustable versus non-adjustable sutures for strabismus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004240.pub4
Pubmed ID

Shoaib Hassan, Anjana Haridas, Venki Sundaram


Strabismus, or squint, can be defined as a deviation from perfect ocular alignment and can be classified in many ways according to its aetiology and presentation. Treatment can be broadly divided into medical and surgical options, with a variety of surgical techniques being available, including the use of adjustable or non-adjustable sutures for the extraocular muscles. There exists an uncertainty as to which of these techniques produces a better surgical outcome, and an opinion that the adjustable suture technique may be of greater benefit in certain situations. To determine if either an adjustable suture or non-adjustable suture technique is associated with a more accurate long-term ocular alignment and to identify specific situations in which it would be of benefit to use a particular method. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 13 June 2017. We contacted experts in the field for further information. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustable to non-adjustable sutures for strabismus surgery. We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened search results and extracted data. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified one RCT comparing adjustable and non-adjustable sutures in primary horizontal strabismus surgeries in 60 children aged less than 12 years in Egypt. The study was not masked and we judged it at high risk of detection bias. Ocular alignment was defined as orthophoria or a horizontal tropia of 8 prism dioptres (PD) or less at near and far distances. At six months, there may be a small increased chance of ocular alignment with adjustable sutures compared with non-adjustable sutures clinically, however, the confidence intervals (CIs) were wide and were compatible with an increased chance of ocular alignment in the non-adjustable sutures group, so there was no statistical difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.53). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence, downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias. At six months, 730 per 1000 children in the non-adjustable sutures group had ocular alignment. The study authors reported that there were no complications during surgery. The trials did not assess patient satisfaction and resource use and costs. We could reach no reliable conclusions regarding which technique (adjustable or non-adjustable sutures) produced a more accurate long-term ocular alignment following strabismus surgery or in which specific situations one technique is of greater benefit than the other, given the low-certainty and chance with just the one study. More high-quality RCTs are needed to obtain clinically valid results and to clarify these issues. Such trials should ideally 1. recruit participants with any type of strabismus or specify the subgroup of participants to be studied, for example, thyroid, paralytic, non-paralytic, paediatric; 2. randomise all consenting participants to have either adjustable or non-adjustable surgery prospectively; 3. have at least six months of follow-up data; and 4. include reoperation rates as an outcome measure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Psychology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 February 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,936,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 284,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,936,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 284,826 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.