| Title |
Keratoprosthesis prophylaxis: is it time for a paradigm shift?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s178622 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
JS Pelletier, SB Barone, JA Capriotii |
| Abstract |
The Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis has been improving in both design and safety since its inception. Due to particular features inherent in the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis eye and certain aspects of the ocular surface, special attention is required to maintain these implanted devices. There is currently a prominent role for keratoprosthesis prophylaxis; it is designed to prevent infectious complications like keratitis and endophthalmitis. This standard-of-care therapy has anecdotally been shown to improve outcomes; however, it has not been examined in the setting of controlled clinical trials. Moreover, concerns remain with the chronic utilization of topical antibiotics in that they may engender antibiotic resistance and select for opportunistic populations to establish a foothold on the ocular surface. We believe and introduce the idea that there is merit in exploring other compounds besides antibiotics for prophylaxis such as antiseptics like povidone-iodine. Specifically developed formulations of povidone-iodine may prove useful in both improving keratoprosthesis safety and simultaneously mitigating concerns regarding antibiotic resistance. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 > Postgraduate | 4 | 36% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 82% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,803
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,996
of 345,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#33
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 345,739 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 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.