↓ Skip to main content

Identifying more reliable parameters for the detection of change during the follow-up of mild to moderate keratoconus patients

Overview of attention for article published in Eye and Vision, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Identifying more reliable parameters for the detection of change during the follow-up of mild to moderate keratoconus patients
Published in
Eye and Vision, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40662-017-0089-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivo Guber, Colm McAlinden, François Majo, Ciara Bergin

Abstract

Reaching a consensus on which parameters are most reliable at detecting progressive keratoconus patients with serial topography imaging is not evident. The aim of the study was to isolate the parameters best positioned to detect keratoconus progression using the Pentacam HR® measures based on the respective limits of repeatability and range of measurement. Using the Pentacam HR®, a tolerance index was calculated on anterior segment parameters in healthy and keratoconic eyes. The tolerance index provides a scale from least to most affected parameters in terms of measurement noise relative to that observed in healthy eyes. Then, based on the "number of increments" from no disease to advanced disease, a relative utility (RU) score was also calculated. RU values close to 1 indicate parameters best positioned to detect a change in keratoconic eyes. The tolerance index values indicated that 36% of ocular parameters for keratoconic eyes had repeatability limits which were wider than normative limits (worse), but 28% of the ocular parameters were narrower than normative limits (better). Considering only those parameters with a RU greater than 0.95, a small number of parameters were within this range, such as corneal curvature and asphericity indices. This study demonstrates that measurement error in keratoconic eyes is significantly greater than healthy eyes. Indices implemented here provide guidance on the levels of expected precision in keratoconic eyes relative to healthy eyes to aid clinicians in distinguishing real change from noise. Importantly maximal keratometry (Kmax), central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) were highlighted as problematic indices for the follow-up of keratoconus in terms of repeatability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%

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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,085,470
of 21,446,675 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Vision
#103
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,800
of 341,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Vision
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,446,675 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 214 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 341,394 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 18 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.