↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of visual outcomes after implantation of diffractive trifocal toric intraocular lens and a diffractive apodized bifocal toric intraocular lens

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of visual outcomes after implantation of diffractive trifocal toric intraocular lens and a diffractive apodized bifocal toric intraocular lens
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s103375
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kjell Gunnar Gundersen, Rick Potvin

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare a new diffractive trifocal toric lens with an apodized diffractive bifocal toric lens in terms of refractive and visual acuity (VA) outcomes, including low-contrast VA (LCVA), as well as the patient's visual function 3 months after implantation. This is a randomized prospective study involving bilateral implantation of a trifocal toric or a bifocal toric lens. At 3 months postoperatively, the subject's vision was tested both uncorrected and with his/her best distance correction at: distance (4 m), intermediate (63 cm), and near (40 cm). Binocular defocus curves were measured with no correction and with the subject's best distance correction in place. Quality of vision was measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. A total of 22 patients were enrolled (eleven in each group). There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute change in measured rotation between 1 month and 3 months postoperatively between the two intraocular lens (IOL) groups (P=0.98). At 3 months, the postoperative refraction and distance VA by eye were similar between groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the measured LCVA between groups (P=0.39). The defocus curve showed that at 67 cm, the trifocal toric lens had statistically significantly better VA when compared to the bifocal toric lens. There were no statistically significant differences by group for any of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire scores (P>0.26 in all cases). The trifocal toric IOL improved the intermediate vision without negatively impacting visual function and distance, near, or low-contrast VA when compared to a bifocal toric IOL. The toric component of the trifocal lens effectively reduced astigmatism and provided good rotational stability.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 21%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#7,047,002
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#580
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,422
of 312,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#14
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 312,595 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 70% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.