↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Risk factors for tube exposure as a late complication of glaucoma drainage implant surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Risk factors for tube exposure as a late complication of glaucoma drainage implant surgery
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s104029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meenakshi Chaku, Peter A Netland, Kyoko Ishida, Douglas J Rhee

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for tube exposure after glaucoma drainage implant surgery. This was a retrospective case-controlled observational study of 64 eyes from 64 patients. Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients with tube erosion requiring surgical revision were compared with 32 matched control eyes of 32 patients. Univariate and multivariate risk factor analyses were performed. Mean age was significantly younger in the tube exposure group compared with the control group (48.2±28.1 years versus 67.3±18.0 years, respectively; P=0.003). The proportion of diabetic patients (12.5%) in the tube exposure group was significantly less (P=0.041) compared with the control group (37.5%). Comparisons of the type and position of the drainage implant were not significantly different between the two groups. The average time to tube exposure was 17.2±18.0 months after implantation of the drainage device. In both univariate and multivariate analyses, younger age (P=0.005 and P=0.027) and inflammation prior to tube exposure (P≤0.001 and P=0.004) were significant risk factors. Diabetes was a significant risk factor only in the univariate analysis (P=0.027). Younger age and inflammation were significant risk factors for tube exposure after drainage implant surgery.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 20 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 20 35%
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 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,157
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,417
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#22
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 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 66% 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 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 56% of its contemporaries.