↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Does the type of treatment have an influence on utility values in a glaucoma population?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Does the type of treatment have an influence on utility values in a glaucoma population?
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s92653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Paletta Guedes, Vanessa Paletta Guedes, Sirley Freitas, Alfredo Chaoubah

Abstract

To assess the impact of glaucoma therapy on utility values in a glaucoma population. A cross-sectional study of consecutive glaucoma patients was conducted. Utility values were obtained using the time trade-off method. Visual function variables (visual acuity and mean deviation in the better eye) and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics (age, sex, race, educational level, type of glaucoma, current and past glaucoma treatments, and comorbidities) were also obtained for statistical analysis. We divided the patients into three groups: medical treatment (group 1), surgical treatment (group 2), and mixed surgical and medical treatment (group 3). Mean age of the study population (n=225) was 65.7 years. After controlling for glaucoma stage (early, moderate, and advanced), the difference among the groups in mean utility values was not statistically significant. Number of medications per patient, type of medication, or type of surgical technique did not have an impact on the utility values. Our findings suggest that the type of therapy did not affect the utility values in a glaucoma population.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Computer Science 3 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,208,395
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#538
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,038
of 240,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#20
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 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 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 240,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.