| Title |
Risk factors for poor outcomes in patients with open-globe injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s108901 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rita D Page, Sumeet K Gupta, Thomas L Jenkins, Zeynel A Karcioglu |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors that are predictive of poor outcomes in penetrating globe trauma. This retrospective case series evaluated 103 eyes that had been surgically treated for an open-globe injury from 2007 to 2010 at the eye clinic of the University of Virginia. A total of 64 eyes with complete medical records and at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the study. Four risk factors (preoperative best-corrected visual acuity [pre-op BCVA], ocular trauma score [OTS], zone of injury [ZOI], and time lapse [TL] between injury and primary repair) and three outcomes (final BCVA, monthly rate of additional surgeries [MRAS], and enucleation) were identified for analysis. Pre-op BCVA was positively associated with MRAS, final BCVA, and enucleation. Calculated OTS was negatively associated with the outcome variables. No association was found between TL and ZOI with the outcome variables. Further, age and predictor variable-adjusted analyses showed pre-op BCVA to be independently positively associated with MRAS (P=0.008) and with final BCVA (P<0.001), while the calculated OTS was independently negatively associated with final BCVA (P<0.001), but not uniquely associated with MRAS (P=0.530). Pre-op BCVA and OTS are best correlated with prognosis in open-globe injuries. However, no conventional features reliably predict the outcome of traumatized eyes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,478
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#53
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 381,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.