↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

An upright eyedrop bottle: accuracy, usage of excess drops, and contamination compared to a conventional bottle

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
An upright eyedrop bottle: accuracy, usage of excess drops, and contamination compared to a conventional bottle
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s104751
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isaiah J Davies, Ninita H Brown, Joanne C Wen, Sandra S Stinnett, Kelsey Kubelick, Roma P Patel, Kristin L Benokraitis, Latoya Greene, Curry Cheek, Kelly W Muir

Abstract

This study tested the feasibility of using an upright eyedrop bottle (UEB), a device designed to assist patients with eyedrop placement without reclining their head. Experienced eyedrop users were enrolled who answered "yes" to the question, "Do you ever have trouble getting your eyedrops in?" After being shown a multimedia presentation and answering a questionnaire regarding eyedrop usage, participants were observed instilling eyedrops. Participants were instructed to instill a single eyedrop in each eye with both a standard bottle and the UEB. They repeated this process three times. With each trial, the amount of time taken to instill drops was recorded, as well as whether a drop landed in the eye (accuracy), if excess drops were used, and if the bottle tip was contaminated. Forty participants were enrolled, with an average age of 72.4±8.9 years; the majority were females (24 females). Thirty-four participants had been using eyedrops for at least 1 year. The time required to instill eyedrops was significantly less with the UEB in the second and third trials. There was no difference in accuracy between the conventional bottle and the UEB in the left or right eye in any trials. Significantly more participants used excess number of drops while using the conventional bottle in both the left and right eyes in all three trials. The bottle tip was never contaminated with the UEB. Depending on the trial and the eye, the conventional bottle was contaminated by between 42% and 53% of participants. The UEB has the potential to assist patients with eyedrop placement. Although there was no difference in accuracy between the UEB and the conventional bottle, the UEB was associated with less use of excess drops and less contamination of the bottle tip, compared to the conventional bottle.

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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 47%
Engineering 3 20%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,183,746
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,355
of 3,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,762
of 367,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#35
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 367,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.