↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Focused ultrasound in ophthalmology

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, September 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 (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Focused ultrasound in ophthalmology
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s99535
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronald H Silverman

Abstract

The use of focused ultrasound to obtain diagnostically significant information about the eye goes back to the 1950s. This review describes the historical and technological development of ophthalmic ultrasound and its clinical application and impact. Ultrasound, like light, can be focused, which is crucial for formation of high-resolution, diagnostically useful images. Focused, single-element, mechanically scanned transducers are most common in ophthalmology. Specially designed transducers have been used to generate focused, high-intensity ultrasound that through thermal effects has been used to treat glaucoma (via ciliodestruction), tumors, and other pathologies. Linear and annular transducer arrays offer synthetic focusing in which precise timing of the excitation of independently addressable array elements allows formation of a converging wavefront to create a focus at one or more programmable depths. Most recently, linear array-based plane-wave ultrasound, in which the array emits an unfocused wavefront and focusing is performed solely on received data, has been demonstrated for imaging ocular anatomy and blood flow. While the history of ophthalmic ultrasound extends back over half-a-century, new and powerful technologic advances continue to be made, offering the prospect of novel diagnostic capabilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Engineering 14 16%
Computer Science 3 3%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 31 36%
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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,277
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,041
of 348,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#30
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 348,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 64% of its contemporaries.