↓ Skip to main content

SLACK Incorporated

Clinical Outcomes of SMILE and FS-LASIK Used to Treat Myopia: A Meta-analysis.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Refractive Surgery, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,173)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Outcomes of SMILE and FS-LASIK Used to Treat Myopia: A Meta-analysis.
Published in
Journal of Refractive Surgery, April 2016
DOI 10.3928/1081597x-20151111-06
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yingjie Zhang, Qin Shen, Yan Jia, Dan Zhou, Jibo Zhou

Abstract

To assess possible differences in clinical outcomes when small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK) are used to correct myopia. A systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify randomized controlled trials and appropriate comparative studies comparing SMILE and FS-LASIK for myopia. The authors identified 11 studies from a review of 102 articles, involving a total of 1,101 eyes, of which 532 eyes (48.32%) underwent SMILE and 569 eyes (51.68%) underwent FS-LASIK. No significant difference between the two procedures was evident in terms of final refractive spherical equivalent (P = .72), the proportion of eyes losing one or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity after surgery (P = .69), or the proportion of eyes achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better (P = .35) and a refractive spherical equivalent within ±1.00 diopter of the target values (P = .70). The tear break-up time was longer in the SMILE group than the FS-LASIK group at 1 (P = .004) and 6 (P = .02) months after surgery. Corneal sensitivity was higher in the SMILE group than in the FS-LASIK group at 1 week (P < .00001) and 1 (P < .0001), 3 (P < .00001), and 6 (P < .003) months after surgery. SMILE and FS-LASIK were comparable in terms of both safety and efficacy. SMILE may create fewer dry eye symptoms than FS-LASIK. Corneal sensitivity was greater after SMILE than FS-LASIK. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(4):256-265.].

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Other 8 12%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 53%
Engineering 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 30 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,594,603
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Refractive Surgery
#8
of 1,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,537
of 314,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Refractive Surgery
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,173 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 314,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 97% of its contemporaries.