| Title |
Patient selection for corneal collagen cross-linking: an updated review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s101386 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Virgilio Galvis, Alejandro Tello, Alvaro I Ortiz, Luis C Escaf |
| Abstract |
Corneal cross-linking (CXL) is an option that in the last decade has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in halting the progression of keratoconus (KCN) and other corneal ectasias. Its indication has been extended beyond the classic definition that required evidence of KCN progression, especially in the presence of some risk factors for a possible progression (particularly the younger age). However, the results can be still somewhat variable today. There are several protocols, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Some predictors of CXL outcome have been identified. We will review the current knowledge on patient selection for CXL, its indications, and options in special cases (such as thin corneas). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 31% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,803
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,873
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#25
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,714 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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.