↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Current aspects on the management of viral uveitis in immunocompetent individuals

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Current aspects on the management of viral uveitis in immunocompetent individuals
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s60394
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uwe Pleyer, Soon-Phaik Chee

Abstract

Viruses are a fundamental etiology of ocular inflammation, which may affect all structures of the organ. Advances in molecular diagnostics reveal an increasingly broader spectrum of virus-associated intraocular inflammation, including all members of the herpes family, rubella virus, and other more rare causes such as Epstein-Barr and chikungunya virus. In particular, viruses of the herpes family are important causes of anterior and posterior uveitis. Owing to their often fulminant clinical course and persistence in ocular tissues, a clear differential diagnosis between alpha- and beta-type herpes viruses is essential to guide acute and long-term treatment. Here, we review the epidemiology, clinical, and laboratory findings of virus-associated uveitis with emphasis on their therapy and management and include our own experience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,416,252
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#382
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,395
of 281,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#10
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 281,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.