| Title |
Goldmann tonometry tear film error and partial correction with a shaped applanation surface
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s152492 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sean J McCafferty, Eniko T Enikov, Jim Schwiegerling, Sean M Ashley |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to quantify the isolated tear film adhesion error in a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) prism and in a correcting applanation tonometry surface (CATS) prism. The separation force of a tonometer prism adhered by a tear film to a simulated cornea was measured to quantify an isolated tear film adhesion force. Acrylic hemispheres (7.8 mm radius) used as corneas were lathed over the apical 3.06 mm diameter to simulate full applanation contact with the prism surface for both GAT and CATS prisms. Tear film separation measurements were completed with both an artificial tear and fluorescein solutions as a fluid bridge. The applanation mire thicknesses were measured and correlated with the tear film separation measurements. Human cadaver eyes were used to validate simulated cornea tear film separation measurement differences between the GAT and CATS prisms. The CATS prism tear film adhesion error (2.74±0.21 mmHg) was significantly less than the GAT prism (4.57±0.18 mmHg, p<0.001). Tear film adhesion error was independent of applanation mire thickness (R2=0.09, p=0.04). Fluorescein produces more tear film error than artificial tears (+0.51±0.04 mmHg; p<0.001). Cadaver eye validation indicated the CATS prism's tear film adhesion error (1.40±0.51 mmHg) was significantly less than that of the GAT prism (3.30±0.38 mmHg; p=0.002). Measured GAT tear film adhesion error is more than previously predicted. A CATS prism significantly reduced tear film adhesion error bŷ41%. Fluorescein solution increases the tear film adhesion compared to artificial tears, while mire thickness has a negligible effect. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 31% |
| Engineering | 3 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,139,861
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#221
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,030
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 449,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.