| Title |
Bifocal contact lenses: History, types, characteristics, and actual state and problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s3176 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroshi Toshida, Kozo Takahashi, Kazushige Sado, Atsushi Kanai, Akira Murakami |
| Abstract |
Since people who wear contact lenses (CL) often continue using CL even when they develop presbyopia, there are growing expectations for bifocal CL. To understand actual state and problems, history, types, and their characteristics are summarized in this review. Bifocal CL have a long history over 70 years. Recently, bifocal CL have achieved remarkable progress. However, there still is an impression that prescription of bifocal CL is not easy. It should also be remembered that bifocal CL have limits, including limited addition for near vision, as well as the effects of aging and eye diseases in the aged, such as dry eye, astigmatism, cataract, etc. Analysis of the long-term users of bifocal CL among our patients has revealed the disappearance of bifocal CL that achieved unsatisfactory vision and poor contrast compared with those provided by other types of CL. Changing the prescription up to 3 times for lenses of the same brand may be appropriate. Lenses that provide poor contrast sensitivity, suffer from glare, or give unsatisfactory vision have been weeded out. The repeated replacement of products due to the emergence of improved or new products will be guessed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,415,350
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#261
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,343
of 95,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 95,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.