| Title |
Effect of pupillary dilation on Haigis formula-calculated intraocular lens power measurement by using optical biometry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s109797 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bharkbhum Khambhiphant, Suganlaya Sasiwilasagorn, Nattida Chatbunchachai, Krit Pongpirul |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of pupillary dilation on the Haigis formula-calculated intraocular lens (IOL) power and ocular biometry measurements by using IOLMaster(®). A prospective study was performed for biometry measurements of 373 eyes of 192 healthy subjects using the IOLMaster at the outpatient department of King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from February 2013 to July 2013. The axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), and IOL power were measured before and after 1% tropicamide eye drop instillation. The Haigis formula was used in the IOL power calculation with the predicted target to emmetropia. Each parameter was compared by a paired t-test prior to and after pupillary dilation. Bland-Altman plots were also used to determine the agreement between each parameter. The mean age of the subjects was 53.74±14.41 years (range 18-93 years). No differences in AL (P=0.03), steepest K (P=0.42), and flattest K (P=0.41) were obtained from the IOLMaster after pupillary dilation. However, ACD and IOL power were significantly different postdilation (P<0.01 and P<0.01, respectively). In ACD and IOL power measurements, the concordance rates were 93.03% and 97.05% within 95% limits of agreement (-0.48 to 0.26 mm and -1.09 to 0.88 D, respectively) in the Bland-Altman plots. Biometry measurements in the cycloplegic stage should be considered in the IOL formulas that use parameters other than AL and K. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 2% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 36 | 71% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 38 | 75% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,528
of 367,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#57
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 367,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.