↓ Skip to main content

A computerized red glass test for quantifying diplopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
A computerized red glass test for quantifying diplopia
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0465-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Han Soo Yoo, Eunjeong Park, Soolienah Rhiu, Hyuk-Jae Chang, Kyoungsub Kim, Joonsang Yoo, Ji Hoe Heo, Hyo Suk Nam

Abstract

Accurate evaluation of diplopia during bedside physical examination is challenging. We developed a new computerized red glass test (CRT) to detect, localize, and quantify diplopia and investigated whether the CRT is useful and feasible. During the CRT, a white dot randomly appears on a monitor. Because a red glass is applied on the right eye, a patient can see one white dot and one red dot when diplopia is present. We defined the degree of diplopia as the direct distance of the two points with the largest deviation and compared the degree with the Hess score and Hess area ratio. We prospectively enrolled 14 patients with binocular diplopia. Test-retest reliability of the CRT was excellent (overall intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.948, 95% CI 0.939-0.956). The degree of diplopia in the CRT was well correlated with both the Hess score (r = 0.719, p = 0.005) and the Hess area ratio (r = -0.620, p = 0.018). The CRT can easily detect the presence of diplopia and provided the quantitative values of the degree of diplopia. The CRT was useful and feasible for improving routine bedside examination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#2,278
of 2,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,355
of 315,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#22
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,554 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 315,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.