↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Evaluation of lid speculum with a drape (LiDrape®) for preventing surgical-field contamination

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of lid speculum with a drape (LiDrape®) for preventing surgical-field contamination
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s81747
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toru Urano, Masataka Kasaoka, Ryoji Yamakawa, Kimitaka Sagawa

Abstract

To compare the degree of surgical-field contamination in cataract surgeries between a new draping method using a lid speculum with a drape (LiDrape(®)) and a conventional draping method. Cataract surgery was performed on 21 eyes using LiDrape(®) (LiDrape(®) group) and on 22 eyes using a conventional draping method (conventional group). Contamination was evaluated by bacterial culture of conjunctival sac scrapings and ocular surface irrigation fluid. Conjunctival sac scrapings were collected before and after application of preoperative antibiotics. Ocular surface irrigation fluid was collected before incision placement and during surgery. Bacterial detection rate and types of organisms isolated at these four time points were examined. Bacterial detection rates were significantly decreased in the LiDrape(®) group at all time points after the application of antibiotics compared with preapplication. Regarding between-group comparisons, the bacterial detection rate in the LiDrape(®) group was only significantly lower than that in the conventional group in the intraoperative sample. Propionibacterium acnes was the most common organism isolated from ocular surface irrigation fluid. The number of P. acnes in the intraoperative sample was significantly lower in the LiDrape(®) group compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in detection rates for other bacteria between the groups. LiDrape(®) was as effective as conventional draping for preventing surgical-field contamination. The number of P. acnes during surgery was significantly lower in the LiDrape(®) group compared with the conventional group, suggesting that LiDrape(®) may contribute to the prevention of postoperative infection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 50%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 2 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 25%
Chemistry 1 25%

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 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#9,592,169
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#918
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,382
of 232,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#45
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 232,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.