| Title |
Identifying risk factors for blindness from primary open-angle glaucoma by race: a case–control study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s143417 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew M Williams, Wei Huang, Kelly W Muir, Sandra S Stinnett, Jordan S Stone, Jullia A Rosdahl |
| Abstract |
To examine the factors associated with blindness from primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) among black and white patients at our institution. For this retrospective, case-control study, patients legally blind from POAG ("cases") were matched on age, race, and gender with non-blind POAG patients ("controls"). Thirty-seven black case-control pairs and 19 white case-control pairs were included in this study. Clinical variables were compared at initial presentation and over the course of follow-up. Black case-control pairs and white case-control pairs had similar characteristics at presentation, including cup-to-disc ratio and number of glaucoma medications. However, over the course of follow-up, black cases underwent significantly more glaucoma surgeries than matched controls (2.4 versus 1.2, p=0.001), whereas white cases and controls had no significant difference in glaucoma operations (0.9 versus 0.6, p=0.139). Our analysis found that glaucoma surgery is associated with blindness in black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) but not in white patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.7-3.2). Black and white case-control pairs with POAG shared similar risk factors for blindness at presentation. However, over the follow-up period, black cases required significantly more glaucoma surgeries compared to black controls, whereas there was no significant difference in surgery between white cases and controls. There was no difference in medication changes in either case-control set. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,920,631
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,102
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,471
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#20
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 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 69% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.