↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Systemic treatment for blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Systemic treatment for blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011750.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael O'Gallagher, Marina Banteka, Catey Bunce, Frank Larkin, Stephen Tuft, Annegret Dahlmann-Noor

Abstract

Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms which include irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision. Loss of vision in children with BKC may be due to corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.BKC treatment is directed towards the obstruction of meibomian gland openings, the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and ocular surface inflammation. Dietary modifications that involve increased intake in essential fatty acids (EFAs) may also be beneficial. Both topical and systemic treatments are used; this Cochrane review focuses on systemic treatments. To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments (including antibiotics, nutritional supplements and immunosuppressants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children aged between zero to 16 years. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2016), 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 21 April 2016. We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved systemic treatments in children aged between zero to 16 years with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single systemic medication versus placebo, and studies that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants receive additional treatments, such as topical antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and lubricants, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning. Two review authors independently screened the literature search results (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that possibly met the inclusion criteria of the review. We divided studies into 'definitely include', 'definitely exclude' and 'possibly include' categories. We made a final judgement as to the inclusion or exclusion of studies in the 'possibly include' category after we obtained the full text of each article. No report or trial met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review; no randomised controlled trials have been carried out on this topic. There is a lack of standardised outcome measures. There is currently no evidence from clinical trials regarding the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for BKC. Trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Master 17 10%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 64 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 72 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,667,908
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,522
of 12,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,723
of 338,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 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 12,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 338,744 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.