| Title |
Corneal biomechanical properties after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s142821 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eileen S Hwang, Brian C Stagg, Russell Swan, Carlton R Fenzl, Molly McFadden, Valliammai Muthappan, Luis Santiago-Caban, Mark D Mifflin, Majid Moshirfar |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) on corneal biomechanical properties. We used the ocular response analyzer to measure corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) before and after refractive surgery. In all, 230 eyes underwent LASIK and 115 eyes underwent PRK without mitomycin C (MMC). Both procedures decreased CH and CRF from baseline. When MMC was used after PRK in 20 eyes, it resulted in lower corneal biomechanical properties at 3 months when compared to the other procedures, but all three procedures had similar values at 12 months. Significant but similar decreases in corneal biomechanical properties after LASIK, PRK without MMC, and PRK with MMC were noted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 47% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,265,756
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#621
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,771
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 331,218 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 66% of its contemporaries.