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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Where does selective laser trabeculoplasty stand now? A review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Eye and Vision, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40662-016-0041-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myrjam De Keyser, Maya De Belder, Simon De Belder, Veva De Groot |
| Abstract |
Chronic treatment of glaucoma can present a challenge in patients who lack the means and/or the discipline to use daily glaucoma medication. We wondered if selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) could be a useful alternative. controlled trials comparing efficacy of SLT in adult patients with any form of open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and case reports on side effects of SLT. Two recent meta-analyses identified eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of SLT with medication (prostaglandin analogs) and with argon laser trabeculoplasty (ALT). We took these eight RCTs as reference base and calculated their success rates where they were not given. Other articles were added to elaborate on technique and side effects. Mean intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction after SLT was 3.8-8.0 mmHg after 6 months to 1 year. Mean success rate of SLT at 6 months to 1 year is 55-82 %. Higher IOP before laser predicts a higher IOP-lowering effect. In terms of mean IOP reduction, reduction in number of medications and treatment success, the effect of SLT was found to show no clinically relevant difference from that of contemporary medication (prostaglandin analogs) and from ALT. The evidence indicates that SLT is an efficacious primary or adjunctive therapy for treating glaucoma. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Professor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 60% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,304,029
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Vision
#51
of 239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,421
of 301,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Vision
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 301,210 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.