| Title |
Amaurosis fugax: risk factors and prevalence of significant carotid stenosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s115656 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pia Kvickström, Bertil Lindblom, Göran Bergström, Madeleine Zetterberg |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to describe clinical characteristics and prevalence of carotid stenosis in patients with amaurosis fugax (AF). Patients diagnosed with AF and subjected to carotid ultrasound in 2004-2010 in Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg (n=302), were included, and data were retrospectively collected from medical records. The prevalence of significant carotid stenosis was 18.9%, and 14.2% of the subjects were subjected to carotid endarterectomy. Significant associations with risk of having ≥70% stenosis were male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-5.46), current smoking (aOR: 6.26; 95% CI: 2.62-14.93), diabetes (aOR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.37-9.90) and previous vasculitis (aOR: 10.78; 95% CI: 1.36-85.5). A majority of the patients (81.4%) was seen by an ophthalmologist prior to the first ultrasound. Only 1.7% of the patients exhibited retinal artery emboli at examination. The prevalence of carotid stenosis among patients with AF is higher than has previously been demonstrated in stroke patients. An association with previously reported vascular risk factors and with vasculitis is seen in this patient group. Ocular findings are scarce. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 57% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,816,184
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,617
of 3,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,076
of 333,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#48
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 333,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.