↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of two laboratory-based systems for evaluation of halos in intraocular lenses

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of two laboratory-based systems for evaluation of halos in intraocular lenses
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/opth.s152201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Carson, Sangyeol Lee, Elsinore Alexander, Xin Wei, Shinwook Lee

Abstract

Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) can be associated with unwanted visual phenomena, including halos. Predicting potential for halos is desirable when designing new multifocal IOLs. Halo images from 6 IOL models were compared using the Optikos modulation transfer function bench system and a new high dynamic range (HDR) system. One monofocal, 1 extended depth of focus, and 4 multifocal IOLs were evaluated. An off-the-shelf optical bench was used to simulate a distant (>50 m) car headlight and record images. A custom HDR system was constructed using an imaging photometer to simulate headlight images and to measure quantitative halo luminance data. A metric was developed to characterize halo luminance properties. Clinical relevance was investigated by correlating halo measurements to visual outcomes questionnaire data. The Optikos system produced halo images useful for visual comparisons; however, measurements were relative and not quantitative. The HDR halo system provided objective and quantitative measurements used to create a metric from the area under the curve (AUC) of the logarithmic normalized halo profile. This proposed metric differentiated between IOL models, and linear regression analysis found strong correlations between AUC and subjective clinical ratings of halos. The HDR system produced quantitative, preclinical metrics that correlated to patients' subjective perception of halos.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Other 8 33%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Psychology 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,060
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#28
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.