↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A Department-of-Anesthesiology-based management protocol for perioperative corneal abrasions

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
A Department-of-Anesthesiology-based management protocol for perioperative corneal abrasions
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s84367
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica R Lichter, Lawrence B Marr, Dennis E Schilling, Mark E Hudson, Robert H Boretsky, Roxana F Barad, Jacques E Chelly

Abstract

Corneal abrasions (CAs) are the most prevalent ocular injuries in the perioperative period. Previously, patients at our community hospital would wait for an ophthalmologist to be available to manage these minor injuries. To decrease this waiting period - and thereby increase patient satisfaction - we developed an anesthesiology-based protocol to manage minor CAs arising in the recovery room. The current study sought to assess this protocol's efficacy as well as further establish the incidence and some risk factors of CA. This was a hospital-based, observational study. As per protocol, anesthesiologists saw and diagnosed any patient exhibiting symptoms of CA, after which they initiated a preestablished treatment regimen. To examine the efficacy of this protocol between March 2007 and December 2011, the number of CAs anesthesiologists managed and time to treatment were recorded. Additionally, the frequency of CAs was established along with some of their risk factors. Throughout the study period, there were 91,064 surgical cases, with 118 CAs (0.13% incidence). Anesthesiology alone managed 110 (93.22%) of these cases. The median time between the end of anesthesia to the time of prescribed ophthalmic medication was 156 minutes (first-third interquartile range: 108-219). All patients experienced resolution of symptoms by the morning following their complaint. Compared to the general surgical population, CA patients were older (P<0.01) and underwent longer surgeries (P<0.01). Minor CAs can be safely and effectively managed using an anesthesiology-based approach. Advanced age and longer surgery are confirmed as risk factors for these injuries.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,785
of 276,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#50
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 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 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 276,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.