| Title |
Does severity of dermatochalasis in aging affect corneal biomechanical properties?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s104656 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kurşat Atalay, Ceren Gurez, Ahmet Kirgiz, Kubra Serefoglu Cabuk |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of a relationship between corneal biomechanical properties and different grades of dermatochalasis. Patients were assigned to four groups according to the severity of their dermatochalasis: normal (Group 1), mild (Group 2), moderate (Group 3), and severe (Group 4). An Ocular Response Analyzer device was used to measure corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc). We found no significant differences in the mean values of the CH, CRF, and IOPcc of all groups (P=0.75, P=0.93, and P=0.11, respectively). However, CH and IOPcc were negatively correlated in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 patients (P=0.013, r=-0.49; P=0.015, r=-0.52; and P=0.011, r=-0.47, respectively), but this correlation was not apparent in the Group 4 patients (P=0.57, r=0.12). CRF and IOPcc were correlated, but only in Group 4 (P=0.001, r=0.66). Severe dermatochalasis was associated with altered corneal biomechanical properties. Some of the important visual consequences of dermatochalasis and related diseases (such as floppy eyelid syndrome) can be understood by considering corneal biomechanical alterations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 53% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,274
of 311,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#35
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 311,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.