↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Anisohypermetropia as a sign of unilateral glaucoma in the pediatric population

Overview of attention for article published in International Medical Case Reports Journal, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Anisohypermetropia as a sign of unilateral glaucoma in the pediatric population
Published in
International Medical Case Reports Journal, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/imcrj.s134809
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah KL Tan, Gillian H Teh, Ching Lin Ho, Boon Long Quah

Abstract

Childhood glaucoma poses a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge to ophthalmologists. Difficulty in examination and limitations on ability to perform structural and functional testing of optic nerve make diagnosis and verification of glaucoma control difficult in children. It is well known that an excessive loss of hyperopia is a useful sign in alerting the examining ophthalmologist to the possible diagnosis of glaucoma. We present an interesting case of juvenile onset glaucoma presenting with anisohypermetropic amblyopia in one eye and normal vision in the fellow eye that has glaucoma. It is an unusual case as the left eye with abnormal vision from hypermetropic amblyopia, though by itself requiring treatment, was a red herring for a potentially blinding condition in the fellow eye with normal vision and lower and less amblyogenic hyperopia on examination. We believe that glaucomatous enlargement of the right eye resulted in significant loss of hyperopia in that eye and in turn contributed to anisohypermetropic amblyopia in the left eye. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of juvenile onset glaucoma presenting with anisohypermetropic amblyopia in one eye and normal vision in the fellow eye that has glaucoma.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Professor 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 8 57%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Computer Science 1 7%
Unknown 9 64%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,351,475
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#135
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,874
of 316,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 316,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.