| Title |
Radial fundus autofluorescence in the periphery in patients with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s89371 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ken Ogino, Maho Oishi, Akio Oishi, Satoshi Morooka, Masako Sugahara, Norimoto Gotoh, Masafumi Kurimoto, Nagahisa Yoshimura |
| Abstract |
To describe the peripheral autofluorescence images and clinical features of patients with retinal dystrophy who showed radial fundus autofluorescence (FAF) at the posterior pole. The authors retrospectively reviewed pooled wide-field FAF images of 711 patients with retinal dystrophy and 56 family members. Eleven eyes of seven women exhibited radial FAF at the posterior pole. Wide-field FAF showed extension of the radial pattern to the periphery in all eyes except one. One woman showed radial hyper-FAF only in the periphery, not at the posterior pole. These eight individuals were X-linked retinitis pigmentosa patients or carriers. The tapetal-like reflex was not observed in their color fundus photographs. The peripheral visual field showed wedge-shaped restriction in some individuals. Wide-field FAF imaging can depict radial FAF not only at the posterior pole but also in the periphery in X-linked retinitis pigmentosa carriers. The authors therefore agree with previous reports that radial FAF may be a hallmark of X-linked retinitis pigmentosa. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 48% |
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 18 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,328
of 276,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#66
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 3,712 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 276,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.