↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Improving quality of life in patients with end-stage age-related macular degeneration: focus on miniature ocular implants

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2011
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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Improving quality of life in patients with end-stage age-related macular degeneration: focus on miniature ocular implants
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2011
DOI 10.2147/opth.s15028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Singer, Angela Herro, Salman S Probandarwalla, Joseph Pollard, Amir, Herro

Abstract

Low vision devices in the past have been mainly extraocular. There are now four new devices in different stages of development and implementation that are currently available. Three of them, the Implantable Miniature Telescope (IMT, VisionCare Ophthalmic Technologies, Saratoga, CA), Intraocular Lens for Visually Impaired People (IOL-VIP, IOL-VIP System, Soleko, Pontecorvo, Italy), and Lipschitz Mirror Implant (LMI, Optolight Vision Technology, Herzlia, Israel) are implanted into the anterior segment while the Argus II (Second Sight Medical Products, Sylmar, CA) is implanted into the posterior segment. The goal of these devices is to increase the patient quality of life which has been measured by Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ) scales. The IMT is the only device that has been shown to increase the VFQ score by seven points at 6 months compared to baseline. It is the only FDA-approved device in the US while the Argus has been approved in Europe. Each of these prosthetics has potential benefits for patients.

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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 43%
Psychology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 8 23%
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 January 2012.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,277
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,418
of 246,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 63% 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 246,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.