↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Measurement of central corneal thickness by ultrasonic pachymeter and oculus pentacam in patients with well-controlled glaucoma: hospital-based comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
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
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Measurement of central corneal thickness by ultrasonic pachymeter and oculus pentacam in patients with well-controlled glaucoma: hospital-based comparative study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s96318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qasim Farhood, Riyam Rashid

Abstract

The measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma and many corneal diseases. To compare the measurement of CCT by ultrasonic pachymeter with that measured by oculus pentacam in both normal subjects and patients with well-controlled glaucoma. In 173 eyes of both controls and patients with open-angle glaucoma (normal intraocular pressure) attending Ibn Al Haitham Teaching Eye Hospital, CCT was measured by oculus pentacam and then by ultrasound pachymeter at the same morning by the same technicians. The results showed no significant difference in CCT readings measured by the two devices in both glaucoma and control groups (glaucoma group: 547.29±49.32 µm with pentacam vs 547.66±45.24 µm with ultrasound pachymeter; control group: 551.02±36.28 µm with pentacam vs 541.25±34.96 µm with ultrasound pachymeter). P-values were >0.05 in both groups (statistically not significant). Ultrasonic pachymeter and oculus pentacam can be used interchangeably in measuring CCT, and we recommend a nontouch method (in this study, pentacam Scheimpflug camera) for measuring CCT during assessment of patients with glaucoma or any ocular disease or surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,208,397
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#538
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,934
of 270,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#34
of 68 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 59% 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 270,139 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.