↓ Skip to main content

Damage to the macula associated with LED-derived blue laser exposure: A case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Damage to the macula associated with LED-derived blue laser exposure: A case report
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0448-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lingling Liang, Zhihua Cui, Chengwei Lu, Qian Hao, Yajuan Zheng

Abstract

Light emitting diodes laser is emerging as an important source of light replacing conventional lights. It is widely used for illumination in the bar where young people love to go. But not everyone knows about the light damage to the eye especially to the macula. In this article, we report the case of a macular damage induced by LED-derived blue laser in a bar, studied with optical coherence tomography (OCT) to evaluate the retinal lesion and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) to evaluate functional damage. Four days after the photo injury to the right eye, the visual acuity was 0.5. Funduscopy revealed a round red lesion in the macula of the right eye. Fluorescein angiography (FA) revealed no leakage. OCT revealed a deficiency in the center of the fovea. MfERG revealed a reduction of the peak value in the right eye compared to the left eye. One month later, although the vision was 1.0 in the right eye, OCT revealed a hyporeflectivity of the ellipsoid zone. MfERG still showed a reduction of the peak value in the right eye compared to the left eye. We believe that general knowledge about laser injuries to the eye should be realized widely. We also think in cases of macular laser damage, the recovery of vision can not demonstrate the recovery of the function of photoreceptors.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Neuroscience 3 15%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#2,136
of 2,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,535
of 309,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#16
of 27 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 2,409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. 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 309,863 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.