| Title |
Precision of 5 different keratometry devices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Ophthalmology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10792-015-0069-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonas Vejvad Nørskov Laursen, Peter Jeppesen, Thomas Olsen |
| Abstract |
To compare the precision among currently available keratometry devices. The corneal power was measured on two separate visits with the Nidek TonoRef II Autorefractor/Keratometer, the Zeiss IOLMaster 500, the Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900, the Oculus Pentacam, and the Oculus Keratograph 4M. The precision was evaluated as the mean absolute intersession difference (MAD) between the corneal power measurements for each patient. Only the non-operated eye was included in the study. The Keratograph was found to have the highest MAD (0.215 D), which was significantly different from the other devices except for the IOLMaster. Nidek ARK had the lowest MAD (0.097 D), but this was not significant compared to Pentacam (0.124 D), Lenstar (0.132 D), or IOLMaster (0.140 D). Only one out of 29 patients had a precision difference exceeding 0.25 D with the Nidek ARK. Among the devices studied, the Nidek ARK was found to have the highest and the Keratograph was found to have to the lowest precision for the measurement of corneal power. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 65% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
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 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#14,834,028
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from International Ophthalmology
#326
of 1,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,622
of 264,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Ophthalmology
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 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 1,032 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 264,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.