↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004242.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Lawrence, Zbys Fedorowicz, Esther J van Zuuren

Abstract

Age-related cataract accounts for more than 40% of cases of blindness in the world with the majority of people who are blind from cataract living in lower income countries. With the increased number of people with cataract, it is important to review the evidence on the effectiveness of day care cataract surgery. To provide authoritative, reliable evidence regarding the safety, feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of day case cataract extraction by comparing clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction or a combination of these in cataract operations performed in day care versus in-patient units. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 August 2015. We included randomised controlled trials comparing day care and in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The primary outcome was the achievement of a satisfactory visual acuity six weeks after the operation. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. We included two trials. One study was conducted in the USA in 1981 (250 people randomised and completed trial) and one study conducted in Spain in 2001 (1034 randomised, 935 completed trial). Both trials used extracapsular cataract extraction techniques that are not commonly used in higher income countries now. Most of the data in this review came from the larger trial, which we judged to be at low risk of bias.The mean change in visual acuity (in Snellen lines) of the operated eye four months postoperatively was similar in people given day care surgery (mean 4.1 lines standard deviation (SD) 2.3, 464 participants) compared to people treated as in-patients (mean 4.1 lines, SD 2.2, 471 participants) (P value = 0.74). No data were available from either study on intra-operative complications.Wound leakage, intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal oedema were reported in the first day postoperatively and at four months after surgery. There was an increased risk of high IOP in the day care group in the first day after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 3.33, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.21 to 9.16, 935 participants) but not at four months (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.55, 935 participants). The findings for the other outcomes were inconclusive with wide CIs. There were two cases of endophthalmitis observed at four months in the day care group and none in the in-patient group. The smaller study stated that there were no infections or severe hyphaemas.In a subset of participants evaluated for quality of life (VF14 questionnaire) similar change in quality of life before and four months after surgery was observed (mean change in VF14 score: day care group 25.2, SD 21.2, 150 participants; in-patient group: 23.5, SD 25.7, 155 participants; P value = 0.30). Subjective assessment of patient satisfaction in the smaller study suggested that participants preferred to recuperate at home, were more comfortable in their familiar surroundings and enjoyed the family support that they received at home. Costs were 20% more for the in-patient group and this was attributed to higher costs for overnight stay. This review provides evidence that there is cost saving with day care cataract surgery compared to in-patient cataract surgery. Although effects on visual acuity and quality of life appeared similar, the evidence with respect to postoperative complications was inconclusive because the effect estimates were imprecise. Given the wide-spread adoption of day care cataract surgery, future research in cataract clinical pathways should focus on evidence provided by high quality clinical databases (registers), which would enable clinicians and healthcare planners to agree clinical and social indications for in-patient care and so make better use of resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 35 28%

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 10 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,709,031
of 16,908,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,275
of 11,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,304
of 289,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#193
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,908,873 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 289,389 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 250 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.