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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison between binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy and digital retinography for diabetic retinopathy screening: the multicenter Brazilian Type 1 Diabetes Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13098-015-0110-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fernando Korn Malerbi, Paulo Henrique Morales, Michel Eid Farah, Karla Rezende Guerra Drummond, Tessa Cerqueira Lemos Mattos, André Araújo Pinheiro, Felipe Mallmann, Ricardo Vessoni Perez, Franz Schubert Lopes Leal, Marília Brito Gomes, Sergio Atala Dib, On behalf of The Brazilian Type 1 Diabetes Study Group |
| Abstract |
Diabetic retinopathy is the main cause of preventable blindness in the economically active population in western countries. Diabetic retinopathy screening is effective in preventing blindness and can be performed through various diagnostic methods. Our objective is to compare binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) to telemedicine protocols of digital retinography for diabetic retinopathy screening in a large and heterogenous type 1 diabetes population in a developing country. Data from 1266 Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus patients from a Brazilian multicenter study were analyzed. Patients underwent BIO and digital retinography, non-mydriatic and mydriatic. Images were sent to a reading center in a telemedicine protocol. Agreement between the different methods was calculated with kappa statistic for diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy classification. Clinical outcome was either observation or referral to specialist. Agreement between BIO and mydriatic retinography was substantial (kappa 0.67-0.74) for diabetic retinopathy observation vs referral classification. Agreement was fair to moderate (kappa 0.24-0.45) between retinography and BIO for maculopathy. Poor mydriasis was the main obstacle to image reading and classification, especially on the non-mydriatic strategy, occurring in 11.9 % of right eyes and 16.9 % of left eyes. Mydriatic retinography showed a substantial agreement to BIO for diabetic retinopathy observation vs referral classification. A significant amount of information was lost on the non-mydriatic technique because of poor mydriasis. We recommend a telemedicine-based diabetic retinopathy screening strategy with digital mydriatic retinography, preferably with 2 fields, and advise against non-mydriatic retinography in developing countries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
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 24 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,433,196
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#468
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,170
of 389,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 389,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.