↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Retinal detachment in albinism

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Retinal detachment in albinism
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/opth.s158785
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmad M Mansour, Jay Chhablani, J Fernando Arevalo, Lihteh Wu, Ravi Sharma, Suthasinee Sinawat, Tharikarn Sujirakul, Alexandre Assi, Wandsy M Vélez-Vázquez, Mohamad A Mansour, Ozcan Kayikcioglu, Cem Kucukerdonmez, Ali Kal

Abstract

To report the visual and anatomic outcomes of albino retinal detachment (ARD) repair. Collaborative retrospective analysis of ARD. Outcome measures were number of surgical interventions, final retinal reattachment, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at last follow-up. Seventeen eyes of 16 patients (12 males; mean age =37.8 years) had the following complications at presentation: macula off (14), total (7) or inferior detachment (5), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (5), detectable break (16), lattice (5), horseshoe tears (9), and giant tear or dialysis (4). Mean number of interventions was 1.8 (range =1-5) and included cryopexy (15) with scleral buckle (11), and/or vitrectomy (8). Mean initial BCVA was counting finger (CF) 1 m and at last follow-up (mean 77 months) CF4m with mean improvement of 4.5 lines (early treatment diabetic retinopathy study) (P=0.05). Intraoperative choroidal hemorrhage occurred in three eyes. The retina was finally attached in 14 eyes, with residual inferior detachment in three eyes with silicone oil in situ. Silicone oil was kept in six of seven eyes because of residual inferior detachment (3) and removal of silicone oil, which led to redetachment (1) or fear of redetachment (2). Repair of ARD may require several interventions, with the need to keep silicone oil in several cases due to nystagmus and reduced melanin pigment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 16%
Other 3 16%
Professor 2 11%
Lecturer 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 5 26%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,557
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.