↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s114890
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allister Gibbons, Tayyeba K Ali, Daniel P Waren, Kendall E Donaldson

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the causes and possible solutions for patient dissatisfaction after the implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs). This study was a retrospective review of clinical records. All patients who were seen between January 2009 and December 2013 whose primary reason for consultation was dissatisfaction with visual performance after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation were included in the study. A single treating physician, who determined the most probable cause of dissatisfaction, decided which interventions to pursue following the initial consultation. Data from 74 eyes of 49 patients were analyzed. The most common cause for complaint was blurry or foggy vision both for distance and near (68%). Complaints were most frequently attributed to residual refractive error (57%) and dry eye (35%). The most common interventions pursued were treatment of refractive error with glasses or contact lenses (46%) and treatment for dry eye (24%). Corneal laser vision correction was done in 8% of eyes; 7% required an IOL exchange. After the interventions, 45% of patients had completed resolution of symptoms, 23% of patients were partially satisfied with the results, and 32% remained completely dissatisfied with the final results. The most identifiable causes of dissatisfaction after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation are residual refractive error and dry eye. Most patients can be managed with conservative treatment, though a significant number of patients remained unsatisfied despite multiple measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 39%
Unspecified 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#8,506,844
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#816
of 3,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,687
of 333,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#18
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 333,154 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.