↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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 (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

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

Kamyar Vaziri, Stephen G Schwartz, Krishna Kishor, Harry W Flynn

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 174 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 170 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Student > Master 15 9%
Other 13 7%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 47 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 59%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 47 27%
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 13 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,714,565
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#668
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,523
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 359,538 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 29 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.