↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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 K 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.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 24%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 36%
Engineering 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 12 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,790,465
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#190
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,788
of 286,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 286,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 96% of its contemporaries.