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 |
Association of TCF4 polymorphisms and fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-015-0055-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan Li, XiaoYan Peng, HuiYu Sun |
| Abstract |
Studies investigating the associations between transcription factor 4 (TCF4) genetic polymorphisms and Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy (FED) have reported controversial results. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to clarify the effects of TCF4 polymorphisms on FED risk. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the association between four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) inTCF4 and the risk of FED. Relevant studies were selected through an extensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science databases. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Thirteen studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that there was a strong positive association between the TCF4 rs613872 polymorphism and FED risk in all the genetic models tested (G allele vs. T allele: OR = 4.19, 95 % CI = 3.53-4.97; GG vs. OR = 4.27, 95 % CI = 2.54-7.19; GG/GT vs. TT: OR = 6.29, 95 % CI = 4.23-8.93; GG VS. TT: OR = 10.64, 95 % CI = 5.28-21.41; GT VS. TT: OR = 6.08, 95 % CI = 4.28-8.64). Statistic evidence was also detected for a significant association between three other SNPs and the risk of FED. This meta-analysis suggested a genetic association between four TCF4 polymorphisms (rs613872, rs2286812, rs17595731, and rs9954153) and the risk of FED. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 33% |
| Researcher | 1 | 33% |
| Other | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 33% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,217,691
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#332
of 2,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,287
of 264,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,343 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 264,785 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 71% of its contemporaries.