↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment using noncontact wide-angle viewing system with a cannula-based 25 G chandelier endoilluminator

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment using noncontact wide-angle viewing system with a cannula-based 25 G chandelier endoilluminator
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s91339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hisanori Imai, Mizuki Tagami, Atsushi Azumi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to report the result of scleral buckling (SB) using a combination of a noncontact wide-angle viewing system and a cannula-based 25 G chandelier endoilluminator. Retrospective analyses of the medical records of 79 eyes of 79 patients with primary uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachments who had underwent SB using a combination of a noncontact wide-angle viewing system and a chandelier endoilluminator were performed. There were 50 men and 29 women. The mean ± standard deviation age was 43.7±16.0 years. Their preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.31±0.65 logMAR units. The final BCVA was 0.10±0.31 logMAR units, which was significantly better than the preoperative BCVA (P<0.01). The initial and final anatomical success rates were 92.4% and 100%, respectively. Backward logistic multiple regression analysis revealed no relationship between explanatory variables and the primary anatomic success (P=0.104). SB using a combination of a noncontact wide-angle viewing system and a chandelier endoilluminator is a modified new technique and may be a valid option for the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Librarian 1 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Other 3 27%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%
Engineering 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,636,771
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#418
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,670
of 273,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#27
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 273,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 63% of its contemporaries.