↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Corneal stromal demarcation line after collagen cross-linking in corneal ectatic diseases: a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Corneal stromal demarcation line after collagen cross-linking in corneal ectatic diseases: a review of the literature
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s117372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leopoldo Spadea, Emanuele Tonti, Enzo Maria Vingolo

Abstract

Collagen cross-linking (CXL) is a relatively new conservative approach for progressive corneal ectasia, which is able to strengthen corneal tissue reforming new covalent bonds. Subjective and objective results following this method seem to be promising. In recent years, newer CXL protocols have been developed to perform more effective and less invasive procedures. The increasing diffusion of CXL in the corneal ectatic disease has increased the need to have actual indices regarding the efficacy of the treatment. Evaluation of demarcation line (DL), a transition zone between the cross-linked anterior corneal stroma and the untreated posterior corneal stroma, is considered a measurement of the depth of CXL treatment into the stroma. Some evidence in the literature emphasize that DL could be a measure of effectiveness of the CXL. On the contrary, some authors believe that the "the deeper, the better" principle is rather a simplistic approach for interpreting the clinical importance of the corneal stromal DL.

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 29%
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 25 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,804
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,247
of 348,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#36
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 348,359 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.