↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Endophthalmitis: state of the art

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Endophthalmitis: state of the art
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s76406
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Schwartz, Kamyar Vaziri, Krishna Kishor, Harry W. Flynn, Jr.

Abstract

Endophthalmitis is an uncommon diagnosis but can have devastating visual outcomes. Endophthalmitis may be endogenous or exogenous. Exogenous endophthalmitis is caused by introduction of pathogens through mechanisms such as ocular surgery, open-globe trauma, and intravitreal injections. Endogenous endophthalmitis occurs as a result of hematogenous spread of bacteria or fungi into the eye. These categories of endophthalmitis have different risk factors and causative pathogens, and thus require different diagnostic, prevention, and treatment strategies. Novel diagnostic techniques such as real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been reported to provide improved diagnostic results over traditional culture techniques and may have a more expanded role in the future. While the role of povidone-iodine in prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis is established, there remains controversy with regard to the effectiveness of other measures, including prophylactic antibiotics. The Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) has provided us with valuable treatment guidelines. However, these guidelines cannot be directly applied to all categories of endophthalmitis, highlighting the need for continued research into attaining improved treatment outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Postgraduate 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 71%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 23 20%

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 13 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,282,139
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#197
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,888
of 217,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 217,981 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.