| Title |
No differences in central corneal thickness between open-angle and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s136007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcelo Ayala, Johanna Karlsson |
| Abstract |
Measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) with Goldmann applanation tonometry are affected by central corneal thickness (CCT), as thinner corneas underestimate and thicker corneas overestimate the true IOP value. The literature is controversial regarding CCT values in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and exfoliation glaucoma (XFG). The aim of this study was to evaluate CCT in patients with XFG and POAG. CCT was evaluated with optical coherence tomography (OCT). All participants who were previously diagnosed with either POAG or XFG underwent ophthalmological examinations. Contact lens users and patients with corneal diseases were excluded. Totally, 145 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean CCT was 535±30.4 µm in patients with POAG and was 536±33.7 µm in patients with XFG. The result was not statistically significant (P=0.98). The mean age for all participants was 73.8±7.7 years. The study included totally 61 women and 84 men. The two groups were similar in their demographic data, and mean deviation was the only parameter that differed statistically when comparing POAG with XFG (P=0.02). Our data indicate that patients with XFG do not have thinner corneas than those with POAG, and therefore, CCT can not explain why they progress differently. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 20% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 60% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,780
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,512
of 324,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#25
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 324,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.