↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Evaluation of a paper-based visual acuity questionnaire

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of a paper-based visual acuity questionnaire
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s138399
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miki Uchino, Motoko Kawashima, Minako Kaido, Kazuhisa Suwaki, Yuichi Uchino, Ichiro Kawachi, Kazuno Negishi, Kazuo Tsubota

Abstract

To validate a paper-based visual acuity (PBVA) questionnaire. In 2015, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 301 young and middle-aged, mostly male, Japanese subjects. The participants were asked to self-rate their visual acuity (VA) on a scale from 1 to 5. Self-ratings of VA were categorized into three groups: good (1 and 2), normal (3), and poor (4 and 5). For objective validation, we performed a functional VA (FVA) assessment in the same subjects. A total of 301 subjects answered the PBVA and completed the FVA test including initial VA. We found out that the result of PBVA was significantly correlated with FVA test and initial VA (r=0.33, P<0.0001, r=0.273, P<0.0001). The trend test analysis between PBVA and FVA also showed statistically significant (P<0.0001). There was a significant statistical correlation between the PBVA and the FVA, as well as the initial VA. This short questionnaire on VA might be a sensitive tool that is easy to implement and utilized in large epidemiological and clinical researches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 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 %
Other 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 14%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Psychology 5 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%

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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#10,937,542
of 12,341,179 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,352
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,831
of 346,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#33
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,341,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 346,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.