↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Spontaneous corneal perforation in an eye with Peters' anomaly

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Spontaneous corneal perforation in an eye with Peters' anomaly
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2013
DOI 10.2147/opth.s49264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moosang Kim, Seung-Chan Lee, Seung-Jun Lee

Abstract

A premature female infant underwent her first ophthalmologic examination at the age of 4 weeks. The initial examination of the baby was requested for evaluation of a 'white spot' on the surface of her right eye. She had been hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit because of systemic abnormalities, such as a right clavicle fracture and microcephaly. Slit-lamp examination of the right eye showed a central corneal opacity, corneal thinning, and an iridocorneal adhesion. The lens and fundus of the right eye could not be observed. We observed no pathologic findings in the left eye. The baby's parents were informed of the high risk for spontaneous corneal perforation without external pressure. At 42 days of age, an ophthalmologic examination of the infant was again requested for evaluation of 'tears' from her right eye 3 hours previously. Examination revealed corneal perforation, iris protrusion, and a fat anterior chamber. We performed emergent conjunctival flap surgery. Three months following surgery, the patient's right eye was successfully preserved with no sign of inflammation or leakage.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 20%
Researcher 2 20%
Librarian 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Lecturer 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 60%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Computer Science 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,332
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,531
of 207,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#39
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 207,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 54% of its contemporaries.