| Title |
The impact of multifocal intraocular lens in retinal imaging with optical coherence tomography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Ophthalmology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10792-014-0016-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arnaldo Dias-Santos, Lívio Costa, Vanessa Lemos, Rita Anjos, André Vicente, Joana Ferreira, João Paulo Cunha |
| Abstract |
Multifocal intraocular lenses (MF IOLs) have concentric optical zones with different dioptric power, enabling patients to have good visual acuity at multiple focal points. However, several optical limitations have been attributed to this particular design. The purpose of this study is to access the effect of MF IOLs design on the accuracy of retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT). Cross-sectional study conducted at the Refractive Surgery Department of Central Lisbon Hospital Center. Twenty-three eyes of 15 patients with a diffractive MF IOL and 27 eyes of 15 patients with an aspheric monofocal IOL were included in this study. All patients underwent OCT macular scans using Heidelberg Spectralis(®). Macular thickness and volume values and image quality (Q factor) were compared between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding macular thickness or volume measurements. Retinal OCT image quality was significantly lower in the MF IOL group (p < 0.01). MF IOLs are associated with a significant decrease in OCT image quality. However, this fact does not seem to compromise the accuracy of spectral domain OCT retinal measurements. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 36% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 71% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,383,471
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from International Ophthalmology
#532
of 1,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,174
of 262,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Ophthalmology
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 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 1,032 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 262,656 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 20 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 50% of its contemporaries.