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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of corneal endothelial cell measurements by two non-contact specular microscopes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-015-0068-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Gasser, Thomas Reinhard, Daniel Böhringer |
| Abstract |
Measurement of corneal endothelial cell density is important both for clinical diagnosis as well as clinical studies. Since endothelial cell loss is considered irreversible in humans, even small changes in endothelial cell density are relevant. Therefore it is important to know whether different instruments for endothelial cell density measurements give the same results and can thus be used interchangeably. In this study we compare corneal endothelial cell density and morphometry measurements from two widely used non-contact specular microscopes, the Topcon SP3000P and Konan Noncon Robo SP8000. Endothelial cell measurements were performed with both the Topcon SP3000P and Konan Noncon Robo SP8000 on 34 eyes of 18 consecutive patients of our cornea clinics with poor image quality being the only exclusion criterion. Images were obtained using the auto-focussing method and manual cell selection. Endothelial cell density (ECD), hexagonal cell ratio (HEX) and coefficient of value (CV) of the endothelial cell layer were calculated by the instruments' built-in software. ECD values calculated by the Konan were systematically higher than Topcon values: in 94 % of eyes Konan gave a higher value than Topcon, leading to a mean difference in ECD between the instruments of 187 cells/mm(2) (P < 0.001 in paired Wilcoxon test). HEX showed a broad range of values and differed greatly with only weak correlation between the two instruments. CV values for Konan mostly exceeded Topcon values, and only showed a weak correlation between the two instruments as well. Values for ECD between the Konan and the Topcon do correlate well, but the ECDs calculated by the Konan are systematically higher than Topcon values. Both HEX and CV vary greatly and do not correlate sufficiently. Thus we recommend not to use the Konan and the Topcon instrument interchangeably. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 34% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,368,104
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#812
of 2,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,910
of 263,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#21
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,354 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 263,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.