↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Selective laser trabeculoplasty: current perspectives

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
3 tweeters


55 Dimensions

Readers on

92 Mendeley
Selective laser trabeculoplasty: current perspectives
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s53490
Pubmed ID

Andrew White, Kate Leahy


Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) has been used in the treatment of glaucoma for just over a decade. Here, we review the current literature in terms of suggested mechanism, efficacy, method of treatment, predictors of success, adverse events, repeatability, and cost of SLT. The exact mechanism by which SLT lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) remains unknown although circumstantial evidence has come in many forms in relation to structural alteration; oxidative stress and inflammatory responses; tight junction integrity; proliferative responses; and microbubble formation. SLT is as effective as argon laser trabeculoplasty and medications in reducing IOP in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The treatment is not uniformly effective in all eyes, and its IOP-lowering effect decreases over time. High pretreatment IOP is the strongest predictor of success; however, significant pressure reduction has also been shown in normal-tension glaucoma and in patients already taking multiple antiglaucoma drops. Mild, transient adverse effects are common. Transient IOP spikes usually resolve quickly with or without antiglaucoma treatment but may be problematic in pigmented angles. The limited available evidence suggests SLT is repeatable and cost-effective for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 18%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 23 25%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 15 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 March 2019.
All research outputs
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
of 3,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 264,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 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 3,203 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 264,455 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.