↓ Skip to main content

Changes in axial length, central cornea thickness, and anterior chamber depth after rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, July 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 (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Changes in axial length, central cornea thickness, and anterior chamber depth after rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12886-016-0296-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chunmei Huang, Tonghe Zhang, Jian Liu, Qiang Ji, Ruili Tan

Abstract

This study was designed to measure changes in anterior chamber depth (ACD), central cornea thickness (CCT), and axial length (AL) after scleral buckle (SB) surgery or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for the repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD). We prospectively reviewed the records of 245 eyes of 245 patients scheduled to undergo SB surgery and 238 eyes of 238 patients scheduled to undergo PPV. ACD, CCT, and AL were measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and biometry, before surgery as well as 6 and 12 months postoperatively. For both SB and PPV surgeries, ACD was observed to decrease significantly postoperatively, with this trend continuing throughout the follow-up period (p < 0.005). CCT showed no significant difference after PPV or SB surgery. AL increased significantly after SB surgery but not PPV. Our results show that SB surgery altered the shape of the eye by changing both ACD and AL. PPV resulted in altered ACD. These findings should elucidate the changes to be expected after SB and PPV surgeries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Postgraduate 5 18%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 64%
Chemistry 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 8 29%
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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,857,330
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#719
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,024
of 365,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#16
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 365,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 60% of its contemporaries.