| Title |
Intraocular pressure readings obtained through soft contact lenses using four types of tonometer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s84953 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joji Takenaka, Eriko Kunihara, Ulfah Rimayanti, Junko Tanaka, Makoto Kaneko, Yoshiaki Kiuchi |
| Abstract |
To compare the reliability and accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measured while wearing soft contact lenses (SCLs) using a non-contact tonometer (NCT), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), iCare rebound tonometer (RBT) and the Tono-Pen XL. Twenty-six healthy subjects were examined. The IOP was measured using NCT, GAT, RBT, and the Tono-Pen XL, while the subjects wore SCLs -5.00 D, -0.50 D and +5.00 D. Bland-Altman plots and a regression analysis were used to compare the IOPs obtained with those instruments and the IOPs of the naked eyes measured using GAT (the standard IOPs in this study). The IOPs obtained by the Tono-Pen XL while the subjects were wearing -5.00 D, -0.50 D, and +5.00 D SCLs were significantly higher than those of the naked eyes obtained using GAT. RBT showed that the IOPs were similar to the GAT standard IOPs under all conditions. The IOPs measured with NCT and GAT while the subjects were wearing -5.00 D and -0.50 D SCLs were similar to the GAT standard IOPs. The IOPs obtained with RBT and NCT while the subjects were wearing -5.00 D and -0.50 D SCLs exhibited a good correlation with the standard IOPs. The NCT and RBT are best when measuring IOP through hydrogel SCLs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
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 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,157
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,106
of 286,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#26
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 286,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 62% of its contemporaries.