↓ Skip to main content

iPad colour vision apps for dyschromatopsia screening

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
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.
Title
iPad colour vision apps for dyschromatopsia screening
Published in
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.10.042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Gordon Campbell, Alexander Lehn, Stefan Blum, Caroline Airey, Helen Brown

Abstract

Optic neuritis (ON) is a common and important cause of vision loss or vision disturbances in the community, particularly amongst the young, and it is often associated with a persistent dyschromatopsia. Traditionally screening for dyschromatopsia has been carried out using pseudo-isochromatic Ishihara plates. These colour plates were originally developed for testing of colour blindness, and indeed have only more recently been applied to ON. As the Ishihara plate books used for testing are expensive, unwieldy, and are not commonly available in many clinics or wards, many neurologists and ophthalmologists have taken to using untested and unstudied downloadable software packages on portable electronic devices for testing. This study compared the efficacy of printed and iPad (Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA) versions of the Ishihara plates in screening for dyschromatopsia in patients who were suspected of having ON. The main finding was that dyschromatopsia testing using a commercially available application on an iPad was comparable to using the current pragmatic clinical benchmark, the pseudo-isochromatic plates of Ishihara. These findings provide support for the increasingly common practice of screening for dyschromatopsia using the iPad.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
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 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
#1,141
of 2,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,140
of 311,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
#21
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 2,430 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 311,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 61% of its contemporaries.