↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Iris rubeosis and hyphema caused by chemical injury due to household detergent

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Iris rubeosis and hyphema caused by chemical injury due to household detergent
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2012
DOI 10.2147/opth.s38255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chikako Suto, Tetsuya Ishizuka, Hiroshi Toshida

Abstract

We report an unusual case of iris rubeosis and hyphema caused by chemical injury due to household detergent. A 74-year-old man with a 15-year history of diabetes mellitus was refilling a container with household detergent at home. He splashed the detergent in his eyes. Slit-lamp examination revealed extensive epithelial damage to the left eye, leading to a persistent corneal epithelial defect. We used a bandage soft contact lens with levofloxacin eye drops as concomitant therapy in order to promote healing. However, a strain of fluoroquinolone-resistant Corynebacterium colonized the eye, so that the corneal ulcer eventually became severe. Use of the bandage soft contact lens was discontinued. His antimicrobial agent was changed to cefmenoxime, a drug to which fluoroquinolone-resistant Corynebacterium is sensitive, and topical instillation of autologous serum subsequently promoted improvement of the ulcer. On day 38 after injury, iris rubeosis led to hyphema and ghost cell glaucoma. With improvement of his corneal epithelial defect, the iris rubeosis and hyphema regressed and his visual acuity improved to 20/25 on the left eye. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a case resulting in severe complications due to chemical injury by a neutral detergent. Ophthalmologists should be aware that corneal epithelial damage may become prolonged in elderly patients with diabetes, and unexpectedly severe when wearing bandage soft contact lens, with infection of Corynebacterium resistant to fluoroquinolones, even if the chemical agent is a neutral detergent.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Other 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 December 2012.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,549
of 202,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#23
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 202,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.