↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure with an air-puff tonometer versus a Goldmann applanation tonometer

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure with an air-puff tonometer versus a Goldmann applanation tonometer
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2012
DOI 10.2147/opth.s38418
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qasim Farhood

Abstract

Tonometry, or measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP), is one of the most important examination procedures in ophthalmic clinics, and IOP is an important parameter in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Because there are numerous types of tonometer available, it is important to evaluate the differences in readings between different tonometers. Goldmann applanation tonometers (GATs) and noncontact air-puff tonometers (APTs) are largely available in ophthalmic clinics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of AP tonometer by comparing the measurements of IOP made using this device with those made using a GAT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 35%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Engineering 6 13%
Computer Science 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,389,265
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#215
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,381
of 141,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 141,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.