↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Central retinal vein occlusion and pseudoexfoliation syndrome

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Central retinal vein occlusion and pseudoexfoliation syndrome
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s77630
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Karagiannis, Georgios A Kontadakis, Nektarios E Klados, Ioannis Tsoumpris, Artemios S Kandarakis, Efstratios A Parikakis, Ilias Georgalas, Miltiadis K Tsilimbaris

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the existence of pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PXF) as a risk factor for the development of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). This was a retrospective, comparative study of the prevalence of pseudoexfoliation in three groups of patients: 48 patients with CRVO, 164 patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and 70 control patients (70 eyes). All patients were phakic and had no previous diagnosis of glaucoma. Patients were matched in terms of age and systemic hypertension. All patients had normal intraocular pressure (IOP) at presentation (defined as less than or equal to 21 mmHg). In the CRVO group, 14 out of 48 patients were diagnosed as having PXF (29.17%). In the BRVO group, 14 out of 164 patients had PXF (8.5%), and in the control group, six out of 70 patients had PXF (8.6%). Differences of percentage between groups were statistically significant (P<0.001, χ (2) test). When comparing patient subgroup with ischemic CRVO with subgroup with non-ischemic CRVO, we found that in the ischemic CRVO group, 13 out of 27 patients were diagnosed as having PXF (48.15%), and in the non-ischemic CRVO group, one out of 21 patients was diagnosed as having PXF (4.7%; P<0.001, χ (2) test). The relative odds of having CRVO in patients with PXF versus patients without PXF were 4.406 (confidence interval [CI], 2.03-9.54). PXF and CRVO, especially ischemic, are strongly associated in our study. Our results indicate that PXF might be an independent factor for CRVO, as it is related with CRVO independently from glaucoma.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 18%
Other 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 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 21 May 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,948
of 278,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#25
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 278,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.