↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The use of dry amniotic membrane in pterygium surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, April 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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The use of dry amniotic membrane in pterygium surgery
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s80102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gelareh S Noureddin, Sonia N Yeung

Abstract

Pterygium is a fibrovascular growth of the bulbar conjunctiva that crosses the limbus and extends over the peripheral cornea, in some cases resulting in significant visual morbidity. When treatment is indicated, surgery is necessary, and several management options exist. These include excision, conjunctival autografting, and the use of adjuvant therapies. This paper reviews the incidence and prevalence of pterygia and also describes the various techniques currently used to treat this condition. These management options are compared to the use of dry amniotic membrane grafting (AMG), specifically with regard to recurrence rates, time to recurrence, safety and tolerability, as well as patient factors including cosmesis and quality of life. AMG has been used in the treatment of ocular surface disease due to a variety of benefits, including its anti-inflammatory properties, as well as its ability to promote epithelial growth and suppress transforming growth factor-β signaling and fibroblast proliferation. However, rates of recurrence for AMG following pterygium excision still surpass other commonly used techniques, including conjunctival and limbal autografting. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which AMG may be most beneficial to the patient, such as when preexisting conjunctival scarring is present, when the conjunctiva must be spared for future glaucoma filtering surgery, or in cases of large or double-headed pterygia. Therefore, surgeons should be prepared to offer this procedure as an option to their patients for the treatment of pterygia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 16 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Unspecified 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 41%
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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,868,837
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,516
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,800
of 315,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#43
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 315,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.