| Title |
Validation of sensor for postoperative positioning with intraocular gas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s105347 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frank L Brodie, Kelly Y Woo, Ashwin Balakrishna, Hyuck Choo, Robert H Grubbs |
| Abstract |
Surgical repair of retinal attachment or macular hole frequently requires intraocular gas. This necessitates specific postoperative positioning to improve outcomes and avoid complications. However, patients struggle with correct positioning. We have developed a novel sensor to detect the position of the gas bubble in the eye and provide feedback to patients in real time. In this paper, we determine the specificity and sensitivity of our sensor in vitro using a model eye. We assessed the reliability of our sensor to detect when a gas bubble has deviated off a model retinal break in a model eye. Various bubble sizes representing the intraocular kinetics of sulfur hexafluoride gas and varying degrees of deviation from the correct position were tested using the sensor attached to a mannequin head with a model eye. We recorded 36 data points. The sensor acted appropriately in 33 (91.7%) of them. The sensor triggered the alarm every time the bubble deviated off the break (n=15, sensitivity =100%). However, it triggered the alarm (falsely) 3/21 times when the bubble was correctly positioned over the retinal break (specificity =86%). Our device shows excellent sensitivity (100%) and specificity (86%) in detecting whether intraocular gas is tamponading a retinal break in a model eye. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
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 29 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,517,992
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,261
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,668
of 311,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#35
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 65% 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 311,862 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 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 56% of its contemporaries.