↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s135316
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lutz E Pillunat, Carl Erb, Anselm GM Jünemann, Friedemann Kimmich

Abstract

Over the last decade several novel surgical treatment options and devices for glaucoma have been developed. All these developments aim to cause as little trauma as possible to the eye, to safely, effectively, and sustainably reduce intraocular pressure (IOP), to produce reproducible results, and to be easy to adopt. The term "micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS)" was used for summarizing all these procedures. Currently MIGS is gaining more and more interest and popularity. The possible reduction of the number of glaucoma medications, the ab interno approach without damaging the conjunctival tissue, and the probably safer procedures compared to incisional surgical methods may explain the increased interest in MIGS. The use of glaucoma drainage implants for lowering IOP in difficult-to-treat patients has been established for a long time, however, a variety of new glaucoma micro-stents are being manufactured by using various materials and are available to increase aqueous outflow via different pathways. This review summarizes published results of randomized clinical studies and extensive case report series on these devices, including Schlemm's canal stents (iStent(®), iStent(®) inject, Hydrus), suprachoroidal stents (CyPass(®), iStent(®) Supra), and subconjunctival stents (XEN). The article summarizes the findings of published material on efficacy and safety for each of these approaches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Other 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Engineering 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 28 25%

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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,900,286
of 16,463,061 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#356
of 2,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,797
of 325,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,463,061 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,374 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 325,356 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 73% of its contemporaries.