| Title |
Femtosecond lasers for laser in situ keratomileusis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s99394 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Huhtala, Juhani Pietilä, Petri Mäkinen, Hannu Uusitalo |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to review and meta-analyze whether there are differences between reported femtosecond (FS) lasers for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in terms of efficacy, predictability, and safety as primary outcomes and corneal flap thickness measurements and pre- and postoperative complications as secondary outcomes. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL Trials Library databases was conducted to identify the relevant prospective randomized controlled trials of FS lasers for LASIK. Thirty-one articles describing a total of 5,404 eyes were included. Based on efficacy, IntraLase FS 10 and 30 kHz gave the best results. Based on predictability and safety, there were no differences between various FS lasers. FEMTO LDV and IntraLase FS 60 kHz produced the most accurate flap thicknesses. IntraLase and Wavelight SF200 had the fewest intraoperative complications. IntraLase, Visumax, and Wavelight FS200 had the most seldom postoperative complications. There were dissimilarities between different FS lasers based on efficacy and intraoperative and postoperative complications. All FS lasers were predictable and safe for making corneal flaps in LASIK. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 26% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
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 10 April 2016.
All research outputs
#8,186,806
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#767
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,117
of 312,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#19
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 79% 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 312,601 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 69% of its contemporaries.