↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Review of hydroxypropyl cellulose ophthalmic inserts for treatment of dry eye

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Review of hydroxypropyl cellulose ophthalmic inserts for treatment of dry eye
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2011
DOI 10.2147/opth.s13889
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa Nguyen, Robert Latkany

Abstract

Dry eye syndrome is a prevalent disease that affects visual acuity, activities of daily living, and quality of life. A number of contributory factors affect the severity of dry eye syndrome, including autoimmune disease, environmental surroundings, contact lens use, hormonal changes, anatomical features, chronic inflammation, infections, and iatrogenic factors, such as medications or surgery. Symptoms may include intermittent or constant blurry vision, discomfort, burning, foreign body sensation, hyperemia, dryness, and photophobia. The severity of dry eye syndrome can range from very mild disease to extremely severe cases with vision-threatening consequences. A variety of dry eye treatment modalities exist to address the different causes, symptoms, and consequences of ocular surface disease, including artificial tears, lubricating gels, ophthalmic inserts, anti-inflammatory drops, and surgical procedures. In this paper, an assortment of literature pertaining to the treatment of dry eye syndrome, in particular hydroxypropyl cellulose ophthalmic inserts, is reviewed. These inserts can be used effectively as monotherapy, or in conjunction with other therapies, and should be considered in the treatment of dry eye syndrome.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iraq 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Chemistry 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 November 2020.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#708
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,270
of 121,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 3,712 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 121,552 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 24 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.