↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Antibiotic prophylaxis: different practice patterns within and outside the United States

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic prophylaxis: different practice patterns within and outside the United States
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s100429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Schwartz, Andrzej Grzybowski, Harry Flynn

Abstract

Endophthalmitis remains a rare but important cause of visual loss. Prophylaxis strategies are important to reduce rates of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery, intravitreal injection, and other procedures. There is substantial variability between the US and the rest of the world. During cataract surgery, intracameral antibiotics are commonly used in many nations, especially in Europe, but are less commonly used in the US. A randomized clinical trial from the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons reported an approximately fivefold reduction in endophthalmitis rates associated with intracameral cefuroxime but these results are controversial. There are no randomized clinical trials regarding endophthalmitis associated with intravitreal injection. Topical antibiotics are commonly used in many nations, but are less commonly used in the US. At this time, there is no global consensus and it appears unlikely that additional major clinical trials will conclusively define the optimal endophthalmitis prophylaxis techniques.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 7 28%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,469,968
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#242
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,371
of 334,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#21
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 334,262 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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.