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 |
Comparative electrophysiological responses in anisometropic and strabismic amblyopic children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s137225 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luiz Cláudio Santos de Souza Lima, Adalmir Morterá Dantas, Guilherme Herzog Neto, Eduardo França Damasceno, Helena Parente Solari, Marcelo Palis Ventura |
| Abstract |
To compare anisometropic hypermetropic amblyopic and strabismic amblyopic responses to pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and pattern visual evocated potential (PVEP). Fifty-six patients - 18 hypermetropic anisometropic amblyopic children (mean age 9.70±2.5 years), 19 strabismic amblyopic children (mean age 10.30±2.6 years) and 19 normal emetropic subjects (mean age 10.10±2.2 years) - were enrolled in this study. After routine ophthalmic examination, PERG and PVEP were recorded in response to checks reversed at the rate of two reversals/second stimulating macular area. The difference between hypermetropic anisometropic amblyopia and strabismus amblyopia with respect to P100/P50/N95 wave latencies (P=0.055/0.855/0.132) and P100/P50/N95 amplitudes (P=0.980/0.095/0.045) was not statistically significant. However, there was a significant statistical difference between strabismic amblyopia group and controls for P100/P50/N95 latencies (P=0.000/0.006/0.004). Our findings indicated that despite clinical differences between anisometropic amblyopic and strabismic amblyopic patients, no differences were found in the responses of PVEP and PERG. The abnormal components of the PVEP and PERG in amblyopic subjects could reflect a retinal dysfunction in the visual pathway. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 18% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 36% |
| Psychology | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,551
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,460
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#27
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 330,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.