| Title |
Ptosis after glaucoma surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s134562 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abraham J Park, Babak Eliassi-Rad, Manishi A Desai |
| Abstract |
Evaluate factors contributing to ptosis after glaucoma surgery. Three-year retrospective chart review from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2015, 157 eyes, 3 surgeons, at Boston Medical Center, to determine the incidence of ptosis and the effects of each variable contributing to ptosis at 3 months after surgery. Each variable was analyzed using the chi-square or independent samples t-test analysis to determine statistical significance of ptosis compared with above variables. The t-test or chi-square analysis showed that gender, steroid duration, use of mitomycin C, duration of surgery, and prior surgeries were not statistically significant factors for ptosis. There was a statistically significant association between those <70 years of age and ptosis (P<0.05), non-combined surgery and ptosis (P<0.05), shunting surgery and ptosis (P<0.05). Ptotic changes occurred more often in those who have shunting (Ahmed and Baerveldt) surgeries compared with filtering (trabeculectomy and Express) surgeries. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,962,193
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#709
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,852
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.