| Title |
A comparison of pop and chop to divide and conquer in resident cataract surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s115840 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fredric J Gross, Debra E Garcia-Zalisnak, Courtney E Bovee, Joy D Strawn |
| Abstract |
In this randomized prospective study, the cumulative dissipated energy and case time of pop and chop and of traditional four-quadrant divide and conquer in the first 60 cases (in total 120 eyes) of cataract surgery performed by two residents at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Hampton, Virginia, were compared. Overall and individually, the residents had significantly shorter case times and used significantly less cumulative dissipated energy for performing pop and chop than that for divide and conquer technique. There was no difference in complication rates or visual outcomes between these two techniques. The results of this study suggest that pop and chop is a more time- and energy-efficient method of nucleofractis than divide and conquer for novice resident surgeons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 43% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 43% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
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 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,803
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,246
of 348,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#36
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 348,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.