↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparing the efficacy of the monocular trial treatment paradigm with multiple measurements of intraocular pressure before and after treatment initiation in primary open-angle glaucoma

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Comparing the efficacy of the monocular trial treatment paradigm with multiple measurements of intraocular pressure before and after treatment initiation in primary open-angle glaucoma
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2012
DOI 10.2147/opth.s29858
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Koulen, Krishna, DeBry, Waldman

Abstract

The monocular trial has been proposed as a test to help control for diurnal fluctuations in eye pressure when assessing medication effectiveness. We undertook a prospective study to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the monocular trial as a test for determining the effectiveness of a glaucoma medication. The efficacy of the monocular trial was compared to the diagnostic paradigm of repeated pre- and post-treatment measurements in determining whether an intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering drug is effective. Forty-two patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma completed five visits: visit 1 for determining eligibility, obtaining consent, and measuring IOP, visit 2 for a second pressure measurement, and visit 3 for a third pressure reading. The new medication was then started in one eye. IOP measurements were made at weeks 4 and 6. The gold standard IOP change was defined as the difference in mean between the pre- and post-medication visits. A medication was deemed effective if this difference was at least 15%. The monocular trial pressure change was defined as the IOP change in the treated eye between the visit immediately before and immediately after the medication addition, corrected by subtracting the pressure change in the untreated eye. All 42 patients completed the full protocol with good compliance. Twenty-five of 42 (60%) medication additions were considered effective by the gold standard method, and 25/42 (60%) by the monocular trial method. However, the two methods agreed in only 26 patients (17 Yes/Yes, 9 No/No). The calculated sensitivity was low (0.68), with a specificity of 0.53. The monocular trial can give useful clues as to whether a medication is effective, but should not be the only information used in making this determination. To obtain the most valid results, multiple pressure checks should be done before and after starting a new medication.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 7%
United States 1 7%
Unknown 13 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 20%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%

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 12 April 2012.
All research outputs
#7,208,393
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#539
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,634
of 119,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#8
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 119,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.