↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Advantages, limitations, and diagnostic accuracy of photoscreeners in early detection of Amblyopia: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Advantages, limitations, and diagnostic accuracy of photoscreeners in early detection of Amblyopia: a review
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s93714
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Sanchez, Sara Ortiz-Toquero, Raul Martin, Victoria de Juan

Abstract

Amblyopia detection is important to ensure proper visual development and avoid permanent decrease of visual acuity. This condition does not produce symptoms, so it is difficult to diagnose if a vision problem actually exists. However, because amblyopia treatment is limited by age, early diagnosis is of paramount relevance. Traditional vision screening (conducted in <3 years) is related with difficulty in getting cooperation from a subject to conduct the eye exam, so accurate objective methods to improve amblyopia detection are necessary. Handheld devices used for photoscreening or autorefraction could offer advantages to improve amblyopia screening because they reduce exploration time to just few seconds, no subject collaboration is needed, and they provide objective information. The purpose of this review is to summarize the main functions and clinical applicability of commercially available devices for early detection of amblyopia and to describe their differences, advantages, and limitations. Although the studies reviewed are heterogeneous (due to wide differences in referral criteria, use of different risk factors, different types of samples studied, etc), these devices provide objective measures in a quick and objective way with a simple outcome report: retest, pass, or refer. However, due to major limitations, these devices are not recommended, and their use in clinical practice is limited.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,583,518
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#293
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,856
of 367,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#10
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 367,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.