| Title |
A pilot study to determine if intraocular lens choice at the time of cataract surgery has an impact on patient-reported driving habits
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s90886 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George HH Beiko |
| Abstract |
To determine if intraocular lens (IOL) choice at the time of cataract surgery affects driving habits. Pseudophakes who were 28-35 months postbilateral cataract surgery with one of two contemporary one-piece hydrophobic acrylic IOLs (SN60WF or ZCB00) were asked to complete the Driving Habits Questionnaire, a validated instrument for determining self-reported driving status, frequency, and difficulty. To determine if there were any differences in driving habits between the two groups, t-tests and χ (2) tests were used. Of 90 respondents, 72 (40 SN60WF and 32 ZCB00) were still active drivers. The SN60WF-implanted subjects were less likely to drive at the same speed or faster than the general flow of traffic, less likely to rate their quality of driving as average/above average, less likely to have traveled beyond their immediate neighborhood, less likely to drive at night, more likely to have moderate-to-severe difficulty driving at night, and more likely to have self-reported road traffic accidents. The differences did not reach statistical significance. Changes in patients' driving habits 2-3 years after cataract surgery may be associated with the type of IOL implanted. A larger study, powered to demonstrate statistical significance, is needed to verify the trends identified in this pilot study and discover possible contributing factors. |
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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
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 30 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,331
of 276,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#66
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 276,425 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.