↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Role of steroids in the treatment of bacterial keratitis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Role of steroids in the treatment of bacterial keratitis
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s80411
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sotiria Palioura, Christopher R Henry, Guillermo Amescua, Eduardo C Alfonso

Abstract

Bacterial keratitis can lead to severe visual impairment from corneal ulceration, subsequent scarring, and possible perforation. The mainstay of treatment is topical antibiotics, whereas the use of adjunctive topical corticosteroid drops remains a matter of debate. Herein, we review the rationale for and against the use of topical corticosteroids and we assess their effectiveness and safety in the published randomized controlled trials that have evaluated their role as adjunctive therapy for bacterial corneal ulcers. In the largest study to date, the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial, topical corticosteroid drops were neither helpful nor harmful for the 500 participants as a whole. However, subgroup analyses suggested that topical corticosteroids may be beneficial upon early administration (within 2-3 days after starting antibiotics) for more central corneal ulcers with poorer vision at presentation, for invasive Pseudomonas strains, and for non-Nocardia ulcers. These results are discussed within the limitations of the study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
#5,447,195
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#491
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,267
of 399,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#14
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 399,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.