The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Revisiting Postoperative Vision Loss following Non-Ocular Surgery: A Short Review of Etiology and Legal Considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00034 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ehud Mendel, Nicoleta Stoicea, Rahul Rao, Weston Niermeyer, Stephen Revilla, Marcus Cluse, Gurneet Sandhu, Gerald J. Todaro, Sergio D. Bergese |
| Abstract |
Postoperative vision loss (POVL) following non-ocular surgery is a serious complication where the causes are not fully understood. Studies have identified several causes of POVL as well as risk factors and prevention strategies. POVL research is made difficult by the fact that cases are often subject to malpractice claims, resulting in a lack of public access to case reports. This literature review was conducted in order to identify legal issues as a major barrier to studying POVL and address how this affects current knowledge. Informed consent provides an opportunity to overcome legal challenges by reducing malpractice litigation through educating the patient on this outcome. Providing pertinent information regarding POVL during the informed consent process has potential to reduce malpractice claims and increase available clinical information. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,942,299
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#527
of 2,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,919
of 315,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,959 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 315,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.