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 |
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling vs no peeling for Macular Hole-induced Retinal Detachment (MHRD): a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-015-0048-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing Su, Xinquan Liu, Lijun Zheng, Hongping Cui |
| Abstract |
we conducted our meta-analysis of published studies to assess existing evidence about the efficacy and safety of vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. that of vitrectomy with no ILM peeling for Macular hole-induced retinal detachment. Databases, including Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Web of Science, Wanfang and CNKI, were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes following vitrectomy with ILM peeling and that with no ILM peeling for macular hole-induced retinal detachment. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.1. Six comparative studies comprising 180 eyes were identified. It was indicated that the rate of retinal reattachment (Odds ratio (OR) = 3.03, 95 % Confidence interval (CI):1.35 to 6.78; P = 0.007) and macular hole closure (OR = 6.74, 95 % CI:3.26 to 13.93; P < 0.001) after initial surgery was higher and the rate of recurrent retinal detachment (OR = 0.08, 95 % CI:0.02 to 0.30; P = 0.0002) was lower in the group of vitrectomy with ILM peeling than that in the group of vitrectomy with no ILM peeling. However, the improved BCVA (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.14, 95 % CI: -0.20 to 0.47; P = 0.42) and the rate of postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling is an efficient and safe procedure for macular hole-induced retinal detachment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Israel | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 26% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 70% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
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 08 January 2016.
All research outputs
#12,868,831
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#432
of 2,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,770
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 81% 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 264,425 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 55% 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 60% of its contemporaries.