↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Update on the evaluation of transient vision loss

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2016
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Update on the evaluation of transient vision loss
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s94971
Pubmed ID
Authors

John H Pula, Katherine Kwan, Carlen A Yuen, Jorge C Kattah

Abstract

Transient vision loss may indicate underlying vascular disease, including carotid occlusion and thromboembolism, or it may have a more benign etiology, such as migraine or vasospasm. This review focuses on the differential diagnosis and workup of patients presenting with transient vision loss, focusing on several key areas: the relationship to thromboembolic vascular disease, hypercoagulable testing, retinal migraine, and bilateral vision loss. The objective is to provide the ophthalmologist with information on how to best manage these patients. Thromboembolic etiologies for transient vision loss are sometimes managed with medications, but when carotid surgery is indicated, earlier intervention may prevent future stroke. This need for early treatment places the ophthalmologist in the important role of expediting the management process. Hospital admission is recommended in patients presenting with transient symptoms within 72 hours who meet certain high-risk criteria. When the cause is giant cell arteritis, ocular ischemic syndrome, or a cardioembolic source, early management of the underlying condition is equally important. For nonthromboembolic causes of transient vision loss such as retinal migraine or retinal vasospasm, the ophthalmologist can provide reassurance as well as potentially give medications to decrease the frequency of vision loss episodes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 27 27%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 19 19%
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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,240
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#36
of 61 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 406,425 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 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.