↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Nystagmus in pediatric patients: interventions and patient-focused perspectives

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 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Nystagmus in pediatric patients: interventions and patient-focused perspectives
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s62786
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn DeCarlo, Kimberly Penix, Mark Swanson

Abstract

Nystagmus refers to involuntary, typically conjugate, often rhythmic oscillations of the eyes. The most common cause of nystagmus in children is infantile nystagmus syndrome (INS). INS presents within the first few months of life and is sometimes accompanied by an ocular condition associated with sensory impairment. Because this condition affects a person throughout life, it is important to understand the options available to manage it. This review focuses on the underlying nystagmus etiology, psychosocial and functional effects of nystagmus, as well as current principles of management, including optical, pharmacological, surgical, and rehabilitative options. Currently, the neural mechanisms underlying INS are not fully understood. Treatment options are designed to increase foveation duration or correct anomalous head postures; however, evidence is limited to mainly pre- and post-study designs with few objective comparisons of treatment strategies. Management of INS should be individualized. The decision on which treatment is best suited for a particular patient lies with the patient and his/her physician.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 21%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%

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 24 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,836,219
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#708
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,643
of 239,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#36
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 239,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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.