↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Visual recovery following open globe injury with initial no light perception

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Visual recovery following open globe injury with initial no light perception
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s87852
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yong S Han, Shaheen C Kavoussi, Ron A Adelman

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze eyes presenting with no light perception (NLP) after open globe injury (OGI) to determine visual outcomes and prognostic indicators for visual recovery. The records of consecutive patients with at least 6 months of follow-up presenting with OGI and NLP to a single institution between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013 were reviewed for demographics, ophthalmic history, context and characteristics of injury, ocular examination findings, surgical interventions, and follow-up visual acuity. Unpaired t-tests and Fisher's Exact tests were used for statistical analysis. Twenty-five patients met our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 50.4±25.5 (range 8-91) years. Four patients (16%) regained vision (hand motion in three patients and light perception in one patient) while 21 patients (84%) remained with NLP or had a prosthesis at final follow-up. Fourteen eyes (56%) were enucleated; nine (36%) were secondary enucleations. Although the sample sizes were small, neither ocular trauma score nor wound size was found to predict visual recovery. Four patients regained some vision after presenting with NLP due to OGI. These findings suggest that, in select cases, physicians should discuss the possibility of regaining some vision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Master 4 19%
Other 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%
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 19 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,780
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,746
of 276,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#40
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 276,761 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 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.