↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical, optical coherence tomography, and fundus autofluorescence findings in patients with intraocular tumors

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Clinical, optical coherence tomography, and fundus autofluorescence findings in patients with intraocular tumors
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s109222
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Samuelsson, Monika Sznage, Karl Engelsberg, Elisabeth Wittström

Abstract

To describe clinical, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) findings in patients with intraocular tumors and determine if OCT and FAF could be helpful in the differential diagnosis and management of different choroidal tumors. Forty-nine patients with untreated, macular, midperipheral, and extrapapillary intraocular tumors were included. All patients underwent ophthalmic examination: best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, funduscopy, and standardized B mode, and if possible A mode, ultrasonography, and OCT and FAF imaging of the surface of the intraocular tumors. Of the 49 patients studied, 19 had choroidal nevi, ten had indeterminate choroidal melanocytic lesions (IMLs), ten had malignant melanomas, and ten had other choroidal tumors. The choroidal nevi revealed subretinal fluid (SRF) on OCT in only 11%. FAF detected isoauto-fluorescence in 42%, hypoautofluorescence in 37%, patchy FAF pattern in 16%, and a diffuse FAF pattern in 5%. Seventy percent of patients with IML showed SRF on OCT and 20% showed tumor growth on follow-up, detected only by OCT and FAF imaging. FAF revealed a patchy pattern in 50% and a diffuse pattern in 40% of cases with IML. Ninety percent of the patients with choroidal melanoma had SRF on OCT and FAF revealed a patchy pattern in 60% and a diffuse pattern in 40%. Patients with other choroidal tumors had SRF on OCT in 30% of cases and no characteristic pattern on FAF. Both OCT and FAF were helpful in the differential diagnosis of choroidal nevi versus IMLs, choroidal melanomas, and other choroidal tumors. Also, detailed and periodical clinical evaluation of patients with intraocular tumors using OCT and FAF imaging for the detection of both SRF and FAF patterns overlying the tumor can be useful for detection of tumor growth.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 25%
Student > Postgraduate 4 25%
Other 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 19%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Materials Science 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,465
of 332,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#48
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 332,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 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.