| Title |
Comparison of intraocular pressure adjusted by central corneal thickness or corneal biomechanical properties as measured in glaucomatous eyes using noncontact tonometers and the Goldmann applanation tonometer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s106836 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kiyoshi Yaoeda, Atsushi Fukushima, Motohiro Shirakashi, Takeo Fukuchi |
| Abstract |
To investigate the correlation coefficients between intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after adjusting for central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal biomechanical properties. A total of 218 eyes of 218 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (mean age =71.5 years; mean spherical equivalent =-0.51 D; mean deviation determined by Humphrey visual field analyzer =-3.22 dB) were included in this study. The tIOP and tIOPCCT, which were adjusted by the CCT (with tIOP meaning IOP not adjusted by CCT, as determined using the CT-1P; and tIOPCCT meaning IOP adjusted by CCT, as determined using the CT-1P), were determined using a noncontact tonometer. The IOPg and IOPCCT, which were adjusted by CCT, and IOPcc adjusted by corneal biomechanical properties were determined using a Reichert 7CR (with IOPg meaning IOP not adjusted by CCT or corneal biomechanical properties, as determined using the Reichert 7CR; IOPCCT meaning IOP adjusted by CCT, as determined using the Reichert 7CR; and IOPcc meaning IOP adjusted by corneal biomechanical properties, as determined using the Reichert 7CR). The GT and GTCCT adjusted by CCT were determined using a Goldmann applanation tonometer (with GT meaning IOP not adjusted by CCT, as determined using the Goldmann applanation tonometer; and with GTCCT meaning IOP adjusted by CCT, as determined using the GAT). Pearson's correlation coefficients among the IOPs were calculated and compared. P-values <0.05 were considered as statistically significant. The tIOP, tIOPCCT, IOPg, IOPCCT, IOPcc, GT, and GTCCT were 14.8±2.5, 15.0±2.4, 13.1±3.2, 13.3±3.1, 13.7±2.9, 13.2±2.4, and 13.4±2.3 mmHg (mean ± standard deviation), respectively. The correlation coefficient between tIOPCCT and tIOP (r=0.979) was significantly higher than that between tIOPCCT and the other IOPs (r=0.668-0.852; P<0.001, respectively). The correlation coefficient between IOPCCT and IOPg (r=0.994) or IOPcc and IOPg (r=0.892) was significantly higher than that between IOPCCT or IOPcc and the other IOPs (r=0.669-0.740; P<0.001, respectively). The correlation coefficient between GTCCT and GT (r=0.989) was significantly higher than that between GTCCT and the other IOPs (r=0.669-0.740; P<0.001, respectively). The IOP adjusted by CCT or corneal biomechanical properties depends on the measurement instrument itself, rather than the adjustment methods, for eyes of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 61% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,087
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,529
of 311,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#31
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 70% 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 311,861 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 80 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 61% of its contemporaries.