| 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 |
Riyam Faihan Rashid, Qasim K Farhood |
| 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. |
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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 44% |
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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,196
of 312,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#46
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 312,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.