| Title |
Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry in relation to central corneal thickness and corneal curvature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s115203 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Konstantinos Andreanos, Chryssanthi Koutsandrea, Dimitris Papaconstantinou, Andreas Diagourtas, Andreas Kotoulas, Panagiotis Dimitrakas, Marilita M Moschos |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature in tonometry measurements taken by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). This was a prospective study of 185 eyes from 97 subjects, attending outpatient ophthalmology appointments, who underwent intraocular pressure measurements by GAT and Pascal DCT. CCT and corneal curvature were obtained using ultrasound pachymetry and Orbscan topography, respectively. All measurements were carried out among males and females during the period 2009-2012. Apart from the usual descriptive and exploratory data analysis, one-way analysis of variance and agreement analysis were performed, linear as well as intraclass correlation coefficients were estimated, and multiple scatter and Bland-Altman plots were produced. Mean IOP measurements obtained were 17.21±4.10 mmHg by DCT and 13.23±4.07 mmHg by GAT. Mean difference between the GAT and DCT measurements was 3.88±2.8 mmHg. Mean CCT and corneal curvature were 522.78±52 μm and 43.83±2.9823 D, respectively. Intraocular pressure measured by GAT was consistently lower when compared with DCT, and this difference was greatest with thinner CCT. Flat corneas seem to influence GAT measurements compared to DCT. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 50% |
| Engineering | 5 | 21% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#820
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,121
of 416,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 416,449 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 56% of its contemporaries.