↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Single flash electroretinograms of mature cataractous and fellow eyes

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
Title
Single flash electroretinograms of mature cataractous and fellow eyes
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s118677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuyuki Yamauchi, Jun-ichi Mochizuki, Akito Hirakata, Shigekazu Uda

Abstract

It is generally stated that opacities of the ocular media, including senile cataract, have little effect on the electrical responses of the retina. However, lower amplitudes and longer implicit times are sometimes observed in electroretinograms (ERGs) of patients with mature cataract. Single flash ERGs of mature cataractous eyes with decimal visual acuity less than 0.1 were compared with those of the fellow eyes with decimal visual acuity better than 0.5, in 105 senile cataract patients. The mean amplitudes and implicit times of ERG a-waves were, respectively, 323.6±95.8 μV and 14.7±3.5 ms in the cataractous eyes and 352.3±96.6 μV and 12.0±1.5 ms in the fellow eyes. The mean amplitudes and implicit times of ERG b-waves were, respectively, 390.1±108.7 μV and 63.4±27.9 ms in the cataractous eyes and 415.3±119.1 μV and 59.0±9.3 ms in the fellow eyes. The mean amplitudes of the a- and b-waves were significantly lower and the mean implicit times of the a- and b-wave were significantly longer in the cataractous eyes as compared to those of the fellow eyes. Postoperative visual acuity was similar in cataractous and fellow eyes. Even though single flash ERG was influenced due to mature cataract, eyes revealed good postoperative visual acuity. Single flash ERG does not always reflect the foveal function and the visual pathway; nevertheless, it remains a reliable guide to evaluate visual prognosis before cataract surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%

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 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,836,237
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#712
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,619
of 283,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#27
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 283,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.