↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic techniques for inflammatory eye disease: past, present and future: a review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic techniques for inflammatory eye disease: past, present and future: a review
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2415-13-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen C Teoh, Andrew D Dick

Abstract

Investigations used to aid diagnosis and prognosticate outcomes in ocular inflammatory disorders are based on techniques that have evolved over the last two centuries have dramatically evolved with the advances in molecular biological and imaging technology. Our improved understanding of basic biological processes of infective drives of innate immunity bridging the engagement of adaptive immunity have formed techniques to tailor and develop assays, and deliver targeted treatment options. Diagnostic techniques are paramount to distinguish infective from non-infective intraocular inflammatory disease, particularly in atypical cases. The advances have enabled our ability to multiplex assay small amount of specimen quantities of intraocular samples including aqueous, vitreous or small tissue samples. Nevertheless to achieve diagnosis, techniques often require a range of assays from traditional hypersensitivity reactions and microbe specific immunoglobulin analysis to modern molecular techniques and cytokine analysis. Such approaches capitalise on the advantages of each technique, thereby improving the sensitivity and specificity of diagnoses. This review article highlights the development of laboratory diagnostic techniques for intraocular inflammatory disorders now readily available to assist in accurate identification of infective agents and appropriation of appropriate therapies as well as formulating patient stratification alongside clinical diagnoses into disease groups for clinical trials.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,468,178
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#244
of 2,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,452
of 197,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,371 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 197,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.