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 |
Comparison of clinical outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted versus conventional phacoemulsification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Eye and Vision, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40662-018-0102-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert Edward Ty Ang, Michelle Marie Salcedo Quinto, Emerson Marquez Cruz, Mark Christian Reyes Rivera, Gladness Henna Austria Martinez |
| Abstract |
To compare femtosecond laser-assisted versus conventional phacoemulsification in terms of visual and refractive outcomes, cumulative dissipated energy, anterior chamber inflammation and endothelial cell loss. In this retrospective cohort study, records of eyes that underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) or conventional phacoemulsification (CP) were reviewed. The Victus femtosecond laser (Bausch and Lomb, Germany) was used to carry out corneal incisions, anterior capsulotomy, and lens fragmentation in FLACS procedures. Manifest refraction spherical equivalence (MRSE), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), postoperative cells and flare and endothelial cell count data were collected. Subgroup analysis of the visual acuity tests was performed based on the type of intraocular lens implanted (monofocal, monofocal toric, multifocal, multifocal toric, accommodating). A total of 735 eyes were included in the study (296 eyes for the FLACS group and 439 eyes for the CP group). At one year follow-up, 120 eyes comprised the FLACS group and 265 eyes for the CP group. MRSE in the FLACS group was - 0.16 ± 0.58 D and - 0.20 ± 0.52 D in the CP group (P = 0.50). UDVA in the FLACS group was 20/25 (mean logMAR 0.12 ± 0.13) and 20/25 (mean logMAR 0.11 ± 0.13) in the CP group (P = 0.48). CDVA was 20/20 (mean logMAR 0.03 ± 0.07) in the FLACS group and 20/20 (mean logMAR 0.02 ± 0.06) in the CP group (P = 0.15). No statistically significant trend was seen for FLACS versus CP by intraocular type for visual acuity. CDE for the different cataract grades ranged from 6.97 ± 5.74 to 29.02 ± 16.07 in the FLACS group and 7.59 ± 6.42 to 35.69 ± 18.30 in the CP group. The FLACS group was significantly lower for post-operative central corneal edema (P = 0.05), cells and flare (P = 0.01), and endothelial cell loss (P = 0.04). Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification had similar refractive and visual outcomes. Phacoemulsification energy, anterior chamber inflammation and corneal endothelial cell loss were less in the femtosecond laser group. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Vision
#120
of 242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,605
of 326,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Vision
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.