↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Ophthalmological findings in Cameroonian boxers

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Ophthalmological findings in Cameroonian boxers
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s134173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giles Kagmeni, Georges Nguefack-Tsague, Steve Robert Ebana Mvogo, Come Ebana Mvogo

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective, noncomparative consecutive study was to examine active and retired amateur boxers in order to evaluate the nature and incidence of ocular pathologic conditions related to the boxing practice. A total of 35 boxers were included in this study. The mean age of the boxers was 28.09±7.57 years (range 18-52 years). Sixteen (45.7%) boxers had >5 years of boxing experience. Fifteen (42.85%) of the boxers reported wearing protective equipment in the bouts and sparring rounds. The number of bouts ranged from 3 to 103, with a median of 20 (interquartile range [IQR] =7-44). The percentages of wins varied from 25% to 100%, with a median of 68.29% (IQR =50.00-79.54). Most of the eye injuries recorded were minor injuries (66.66%), with subconjunctival hemorrhage being the most common (24.24%). Lid scars were the second most common lesion, accounting for 18.18% of all lesions. Sight-threatening eye lesions accounted for 33.34% of injuries and included cataracts (12.12%), lens dislocation (3.03%), pseudoexfoliation syndrome (3.03%), unilateral glaucoma (3.03%), retinal detachment (3.03%), vitreous opacity (6.06%), and lattice degeneration (3.03%). Boxing-related ocular traumas are common in Cameroon, and ocular surface lesions are the most common injury reported. Severe lesions are indications for premature retirement from boxing practice.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Sports and Recreations 2 11%
Mathematics 1 6%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,415
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,969
of 331,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#29
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 331,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.