↓ Skip to main content

ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update)

Overview of attention for article published in Documenta Ophthalmologica, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 485)
  • 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
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
494 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
431 Mendeley
Title
ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update)
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10633-016-9553-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Vernon Odom, Michael Bach, Mitchell Brigell, Graham E. Holder, Daphne L. McCulloch, Atsushi Mizota, Alma Patrizia Tormene, International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision

Abstract

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can provide important diagnostic information regarding the functional integrity of the visual system. This document updates the ISCEV standard for clinical VEP testing and supersedes the 2009 standard. The main changes in this revision are the acknowledgment that pattern stimuli can be produced using a variety of technologies with an emphasis on the need for manufacturers to ensure that there is no luminance change during pattern reversal or pattern onset/offset. The document is also edited to bring the VEP standard into closer harmony with other ISCEV standards. The ISCEV standard VEP is based on a subset of stimulus and recording conditions that provide core clinical information and can be performed by most clinical electrophysiology laboratories throughout the world. These are: (1) Pattern-reversal VEPs elicited by checkerboard stimuli with large 1 degree (°) and small 0.25° checks. (2) Pattern onset/offset VEPs elicited by checkerboard stimuli with large 1° and small 0.25° checks. (3) Flash VEPs elicited by a flash (brief luminance increment) which subtends a visual field of at least 20°. The ISCEV standard VEP protocols are defined for a single recording channel with a midline occipital active electrode. These protocols are intended for assessment of the eye and/or optic nerves anterior to the optic chiasm. Extended, multi-channel protocols are required to evaluate postchiasmal lesions.

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 431 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 428 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 14%
Student > Bachelor 52 12%
Student > Master 48 11%
Researcher 42 10%
Student > Postgraduate 24 6%
Other 77 18%
Unknown 128 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 20%
Neuroscience 63 15%
Engineering 35 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 5%
Psychology 13 3%
Other 55 13%
Unknown 154 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#5,286,844
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Documenta Ophthalmologica
#29
of 485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,942
of 378,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Documenta Ophthalmologica
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 485 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 378,864 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them