↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Lacrimal drainage anomalies in congenital rubella syndrome

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Lacrimal drainage anomalies in congenital rubella syndrome
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s149111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shweta Gupta, Mohammad Javed Ali, Milind N Naik

Abstract

The objective of this study was to ascertain the lacrimal drainage anomalies in a cohort of patients suffering from congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). This was a retrospective case series performed in patients with CRS presenting with associated lacrimal drainage anomalies (LDA) over 6 years from 2011 to 2016. All the patients were confirmed as having CRS after clinical and laboratory testing. Data collected include demographics; associated lacrimal, ocular, and systemic anomalies; interventions performed for lacrimal anomalies; and their anatomical and functional outcomes. Eighty five patients were diagnosed as having CRS during the study period, and of these 23 eyes of 12 patients with associated LDA were included in the study. The prevalence of LDA was 14% in CRS. The mean age at presentation was 15.5 weeks, and all except one had bilateral presentation. Seventeen eyes were diagnosed with simple congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) and the remaining six eyes had complex CNLDO with buried probes. Additional lacrimal anomalies noted in the six complex CNLDO cases included punctal agenesis (n=3), atonic sac (n=3), incomplete punctal canalization (n=2), and single canalicular wall hypoplasia (n=1). At a mean follow-up of 12.54 months, anatomical and functional success were noted in 91.3% (21/23 eyes). Simple CNLDO was the most common of the LDA in CRS. Buried probe was universal among the cases with complex CNLDO. All CRS patients should be screened for lacrimal anomalies to initiate appropriate interventions for successful outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 8 100%
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 11 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,941,190
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#706
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,424
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#10
of 28 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 68th 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 80% 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 340,752 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 64% of its contemporaries.