↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Goldmann tonometer error correcting prism: clinical evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Goldmann tonometer error correcting prism: clinical evaluation
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s135272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean McCafferty, Garrett Lim, William Duncan, Eniko Enikov, jim schwiegerling, jason levine, corin kew

Abstract

Clinically evaluate a modified applanating surface Goldmann tonometer prism designed to substantially negate errors due to patient variability in biomechanics. A modified Goldmann prism with a correcting applanation tonometry surface (CATS) was mathematically optimized to minimize the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement error due to patient variability in corneal thickness, stiffness, curvature, and tear film adhesion force. A comparative clinical study of 109 eyes measured IOP with CATS and Goldmann prisms. The IOP measurement differences between the CATS and Goldmann prisms were correlated to corneal thickness, hysteresis, and curvature. The CATS tonometer prism in correcting for Goldmann central corneal thickness (CCT) error demonstrated a reduction to <±2 mmHg in 97% of a standard CCT population. This compares to only 54% with CCT error <±2 mmHg using the Goldmann prism. Equal reductions of ~50% in errors due to corneal rigidity and curvature were also demonstrated. The results validate the CATS prism's improved accuracy and expected reduced sensitivity to Goldmann errors without IOP bias as predicted by mathematical modeling. The CATS replacement for the Goldmann prism does not change Goldmann measurement technique or interpretation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 60%
Engineering 2 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,490,244
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#384
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,655
of 259,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#10
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 259,435 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 59% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.