| Title |
Cataract surgery: factors influencing decision to treat and implications for training (south-east Scotland 2008–2014)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s92803 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan J Sniatecki, Caroline Styles, Natalie Boyle, Roshini Sanders |
| Abstract |
To describe the population referred for cataract surgery, identify factors that influenced decision to treat, and patients suitable for ophthalmic training. A total of 2,693 consecutive referrals over 6 years were interrogated using Business Objects software on cataract electronic patient records. A total of 2,693 patients were referred for cataract surgery (group A). Of these patients 2,132 (79%) had surgery (group B) and 561 (21%) did not (group C). Age for group B vs group C: 672 (32%) vs 115 (20%) ≤69 years, P<0.001; 803 (38%) vs 225 (40%) 70-79 years, P=0.48; 586 (27%) vs 203 (36%) 80-89 years, P<0.05; 71 (3%) vs 18 (3%) ≥90 years, P=1.0. Visual acuity, group B vs group C: 556 (26%) vs 664 (59%) 6/12 or better; 1,275 (60%) vs 367 (33%) 6/18-6/60; 266 (12%) vs 64 (6%) counting fingers or worse, P<0.05. Medical history for group B vs C: cognitive impairment: 55 (2.6%) vs 29 (5.2%), P<0.05; cardiovascular accident: 158 (7.4%) vs 60 (10.7%), P<0.05; diabetes: 372 (17.4%) vs 96 (17.1%), P=0.87; COPD/asthma: 382 (17.9%) vs 93 (16.6%), P=0.53; heart disease: 535 (25.1%) vs 155 (27.6%), P=0.35; hypertension: 971 (45.5%) vs 263 (46.9%), P=0.73. Ocular history for group B vs C was significant (P<0.05) for age-related macular degeneration 255 (12.0%) vs 93 (16.6%), other macular pathology 38 (1.8%) vs 25 (4.5%), corneal pathology 92 (4.3%) vs 36 (6.4%), amblyopia 37 (1.7%) vs 22 (3.9%). Detailed data on presenting complaint, ophthalmic history, and social status is discussed. We observed that surgery at a younger age with good levels of visual acuity was a factor in deferring cataract surgery. Cognitive impairment, cardiovascular accident, amblyopia, corneal and macular pathology significantly affected decision not to operate. We estimate that 80% of patients would be suitable for ophthalmic training. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,551
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,817
of 276,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#38
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 276,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.