↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparing consistency of clear corneal incisions using a traditional diamond keratome and a newly designed diamond keratome

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Comparing consistency of clear corneal incisions using a traditional diamond keratome and a newly designed diamond keratome
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s87508
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randall Olson, Russell Swan, Julia Byrd, Daniel Bettis

Abstract

To compare the consistency of incision architecture utilizing a traditional diamond keratome and a newly designed diamond keratome. We used a traditional diamond keratome and newly designed diamond keratome to create clear corneal incisions in human cadaveric donor eyes. Three surgeons with varying levels of experience made 30 incisions with each keratome; and the wound architecture was measured including incision lengths, epithelial and endothelial widths, and the central epithelial incision's deviation from a straight line entrance. The mean absolute difference in right and left incision lengths (traditional: 0.182 ± 0.158 mm and new 0.088±0.077 mm [P<0.003]), mean absolute difference in epithelial and endothelial incision width (traditional: 0.181±0.144 mm and new 0.080±0.092 mm [P<0.002]), endothelial incision central deviation from a straight line (traditional: 0.128±0.242 mm and new -0.046±0.124 mm [P<0.001]) were all significantly more consistent with the newly designed diamond keratome than with the traditional diamond keratome. The newly designed diamond keratome creates a more consistent clear corneal incision than a traditional diamond keratome across a variety of surgical skill levels and does not require advanced levels of training to achieve this consistency.

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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 33%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 33%
Unspecified 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 67%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

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 03 August 2015.
All research outputs
#9,592,173
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#922
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,363
of 235,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#49
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 235,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.