↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical performance of KeraSoft® IC in irregular corneas

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Clinical performance of KeraSoft® IC in irregular corneas
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s87176
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Su, Lynette Johns, Marjorie J Rah, Robert Ryan, Joseph Barr

Abstract

This study evaluated the clinical performance of KeraSoft(®) IC (KIC) soft contact lenses in subjects with irregular corneas. This was a 12-month, prospective, open-label, observational study, which enrolled 43 subjects who were 18 years of age or older with irregular corneas. Subjects were fit according to the KIC Fitting Manual (kerasoftic.com). After achieving best fit according to the fitting manual, lenses were assessed for comfort, vision, centration, rotation, and movement. Subjects were instructed to wear their lenses between 8 and 16 hours each day. Assessments at the exit visit included logMAR visual acuity with high and low contrast, spherocylindrical overrefraction, slit-lamp findings, adverse events, and subjective outcomes. The average base curve was 8.17±0.32 mm (n=70 eyes), and the average diameter dispensed was 14.53±0.12 mm (n=70 eyes). From the baseline to 12 months, there was statistically significant improvement in logMAR visual acuity with high contrast (P=0.038), but no significant difference in low-contrast visual acuity was observed (P>0.05). Slit-lamp findings were ≤ grade 1 for the majority of subjects (89%). Two nonserious adverse events were reported for two of the 84 enrolled eyes (two subjects). At 12 months, subjects reported improvements from habitual baseline for comfort and vision, both upon insertion and just before removal of lenses. Clinical outcomes at 12 months showed good visual, safety, and subjective outcomes for subjects with corneal irregularities who wore KeraSoft(®) IC soft contact lenses.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,347
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,473
of 286,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#34
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 58% 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 286,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.