| 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 B Maier, Johannes Gonnermann, Eckart Bertelmann, Matthias K J 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. |
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 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% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 42% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
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
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,829
of 294,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#58
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 294,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.