↓ Skip to main content

Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness measurement with non-contact methods: a comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in International Ophthalmology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness measurement with non-contact methods: a comparative study
Published in
International Ophthalmology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10792-017-0543-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarannum Mansoori, Nagalla Balakrishna

Abstract

To compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements and reliability of RTVue XR-100 anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), AL-scan optical biometer and Schwind Sirius anterior segment analysis system. The CCT was measured in one hundred and twenty-seven eyes of 127 healthy subjects with AS-OCT, AL-scan and Sirius system. Mean CCT was compared among the instruments, and the level of agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. One eye each of 30 subjects was randomly assigned for intrasession intraoperator and interoperator repeatability which was assessed using coefficient of variation and intraclass correlation coefficient. Mean CCT with AS-OCT, AL-scan and Sirius system was 496.72 ± 32.75, 507.43 ± 33.54 and 512.08 ± 33.1 µm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between AL-scan and Sirius system (p = 0.26). Significant difference was found between AS-OCT/AL-scan (p = 0.01) and AS-OCT/Sirius system (p < 0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a high level of agreement between AL-Scan/Sirius system (Mean difference -4.6 µm) and a low level of agreement between AS-OCT/AL-scan (Mean difference -10.7 µm) and OCT/Sirius system (Mean difference -15.4 µm). AS-OCT underestimated CCT measurements when compared to other two devices in healthy subjects. Hence, one must be cautious when analyzing the results from different machines and should be aware that the measurement values are not interchangeable.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Environmental Science 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#16,824,145
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from International Ophthalmology
#425
of 1,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,477
of 323,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Ophthalmology
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,185 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 323,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.