↓ Skip to main content

Mapping standard ophthalmic outcome sets to metrics currently reported in eight eye hospitals

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters


3 Dimensions

Readers on

23 Mendeley
Mapping standard ophthalmic outcome sets to metrics currently reported in eight eye hospitals
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0667-0
Pubmed ID

Monica Michelotti, Dirk F. de Korne, Jennifer S. Weizer, Paul P. Lee, Declan Flanagan, Simon P. Kelly, Anne Odergren, Sukhpal S. Sandhu, Charity Wai, Niek Klazinga, Aravind Haripriya, Joshua D. Stein, Melanie Hingorani


To determine alignment of proposed international standard outcomes sets for ophthalmic conditions to metrics currently reported by eye hospitals. Mixed methods comparative benchmark study, including eight eye hospitals in Australia, India, Singapore, Sweden, U.K., and U.S. All are major international tertiary care and training centers in ophthalmology. Main outcome measure is consistency of ophthalmic outcomes measures reported. International agreed standard outcomes (ICHOM) sets are available for cataract surgery (10 metrics) and macular degeneration (7 metrics). The eight hospitals reported 22 different metrics for cataract surgery and 2 for macular degeneration, which showed only limited overlap with the proposed ICHOM metrics. None of the hospitals reported patient reported visual functioning or vision-related quality of life outcomes measures (PROMs). Three hospitals (38%) reported rates for uncomplicated cataract surgeries only. There was marked variation in how and at what point postoperatively visual outcomes following cataract, cornea, glaucoma, strabismus and oculoplastics procedures were reported. Seven (87.5%) measured post-operative infections and four (50%) measured 30 day unplanned reoperation rates. Outcomes reporting for ophthalmic conditions currently widely varies across hospitals internationally and does not include patient-reported outcomes. Reaching consensus on measures and consistency in data collection will allow meaningful comparisons and provide an evidence base enabling improved sharing of "best practices" to improve eye care globally. Implementation of international standards is still a major challenge and practice-based knowledge on measures should be one of the inputs of the international standardization process.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 26%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 4%
Other 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Unspecified 7 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%

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 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,416,981 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
of 680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 359,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,416,981 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 680 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 359,506 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 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.