↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachment and visual prognosis in idiopathic epiretinal membranes

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, December 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
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachment and visual prognosis in idiopathic epiretinal membranes
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s89683
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayumi Ota, Yoshiaki Tanaka, Fumihiko Toyoda, Machiko Shimmura, Nozomi Kinoshita, Hiroko Takano, Akihiro Kakehashi

Abstract

To clarify the relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachments (PVDs) and visual prognoses in idiopathic epiretinal membranes (ERMs). In this retrospective, observational, and consecutive case series, we observed variations in PVDs in 37 patients (mean age, 65.7±11.0 years) with ERMs and followed them for 2 years. Three PVD types were found biomicroscopically: no PVD, complete PVD with collapse (C-PVD with collapse), and partial PVD without shrinkage, with persistent vitreous attachment to the macula through the premacular hole of the posterior hyaloid membrane (P-PVD without shrinkage [M]). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured and converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) BCVA at the first visit and 2 years later. No PVD was observed in 16 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 61.3±11.3 years), C-PVD with collapse in 11 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 69.1±9.9 years), and P-PVD without shrinkage (M) in 10 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 69.3±10.9 years). The logMAR BCVA at the first visit was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (-0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05). The logMAR BCVA 2 years later was also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons). The change in the logMAR BCVA over the 2-year follow-up period was worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.17±0.23) compared with the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons). Cases with an ERM with a P-PVD without shrinkage (M) had a worse visual prognosis than those with an ERM with no PVD and C-PVD with collapse.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,776
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#42
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 395,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.