↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s93213
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milena Pahlitzsch, Necip Torun, Carl Erb, Jeanette Bruenner, Anna-Karina Maier, Johannes Gonnermann, Eckart Bertelmann, Matthias Klamann

Abstract

To assess the correlation between the disc damage likelihood scale (DDLS) objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3, and optic coherence tomography in preperimetric glaucoma. One-hundred-twenty-five patients with preperimetric primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (n=30) were included (mean age 58.9±15.9 years). All three devices graded the optic disc topography: Diagnosis 1 was defined as "outside normal limits", while Diagnosis 2 as "borderline or outside normal limits". For Diagnosis 1, a significant correlation was shown between DDLS and Moorfields regression analysis (P=0.022), and for Diagnosis 2 with glaucoma probability score analysis (P=0.024), in POAG. In pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, DDLS did not correlate significantly with Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 and optic coherence tomography. Regarding the area under the curve the highest predictive power was demonstrated by the objective DDLS (0.513-0.824) compared to Burk (0.239-0.343) and Mikelberg (0.093-0.270) coefficients. The DDLS showed a significant correlation to the Moorfields regression analysis in preperimetric POAG. The objective DDLS showed the highest predictive power and thus is an additive tool in diagnosing preperimetric glaucoma.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Student > Postgraduate 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Engineering 2 11%
Computer Science 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 26%

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 24 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,777,370
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,432
of 3,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,553
of 284,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#57
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,188 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 284,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.