↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Macular thickness and macular volume measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in normal Nepalese eyes

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
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Macular thickness and macular volume measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in normal Nepalese eyes
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s95956
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amrit Pokharel, Gauri Shankar Shrestha, Jyoti Baba Shrestha

Abstract

To record the normative values for macular thickness and macular volume in normal Nepalese eyes. In all, 126 eyes of 63 emmetropic subjects (mean age: 21.17±6.76 years; range: 10-37 years) were assessed for macular thickness and macular volume, using spectral domain-optical coherence tomography over 6×6 mm(2) in the posterior pole. A fast macular thickness protocol was employed. Statistics such as the mean, median, standard deviation, percentiles, and range were used, while a P-value was set at 0.05 to test significance. Average macular thickness and total macular volume were larger in males compared to females. With each year of increasing age, these variables decreased by 0.556 μm and 0.0156 mm(3) for average macular thickness and total macular volume, respectively. The macular thickness was greatest in the inner superior section and lowest at the center of the fovea. The volume was greatest in the outer nasal section and thinnest in the fovea. The central subfield thickness (r=-0.243, P=0.055) and foveal volume (r=0.216, P=0.09) did not correlate with age. Males and females differ significantly with regard to macular thickness and macular volume measurements. Reports by other studies that the increase in axial length reduced thickness and volume, were negated by this study which found a positive correlation among axial length, thickness, and volume.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Other 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,010
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,279
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,461
of 312,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#28
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.