↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Infantile esotropia: risk factors associated with reoperation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Infantile esotropia: risk factors associated with reoperation
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s116103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriano Magli, Luca Rombetto, Francesco Matarazzo, Roberta Carelli

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with misalignment after first surgery performed on children affected by infantile esotropia to evaluate the reoperation rate. A retrospective study was carried out, analyzing data from 525 children who underwent bilateral medial recti recession, bilateral lateral recti resection, and inferior oblique recession and anteroposition by the same surgeon (AM). Postoperative evaluation included assessment of motor alignment at approximately 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years. Statistical analysis was performed with a logistical regression model in which the dependent variable was the presence/absence of reoperation. We found that late surgery (after 3 years of age) and a family history of strabismus are associated with a higher risk of reoperation, while some clinical factors, including some classically associated with worst motor outcome as preoperative angle, dissociated vertical deviation, and amblyopia, did not influence the incidence of reoperation in infantile esotropia. Male patients and patients with hyperopia in preoperative examinations have a significantly decreased reoperation rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Unspecified 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,277,392
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#985
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,470
of 332,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#22
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 332,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.