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 |
Rebound tonometry versus Goldmann tonometry in school children: feasibility and agreement of intraocular pressure measurements
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.5935/0004-2749.20150095 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruno Leonardo Barranco Esporcatte, Flávio Siqueira Santos Lopes, Camila Fonseca, Vespasiano Rebouças-Santos, Diego Torres Dias, Fábio Iglesias Marujo, Christiane Rolim-de-Moura |
| Abstract |
High intraocular pressure (IOP) is an important risk factor for a variety of pediatric ophthalmic conditions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, length of examination, and corneal epithelial damage induced by rebound tonometry (RBT) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in school children. Healthy children (n=57) participated in a randomized, transversal study with IOP measurement by GAT followed by RBT (study arm 1) or RBT followed by GAT (study arm 2). The number of attempts to acquire a reliable IOP measurement and the length of the examination were quantified. Corneal epithelial damage induced by tonometry was evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to establish the level of agreement between the two techniques. The IOP was measured in all children with at least one of the devices. In both study arms, more children failed to be examined with GAT than with RBT (26% vs. 4%, and 16% vs. 6%, p<0.001, in study arm 1 and 2, respectively). The length of examination was shorter for RBT than for GAT (67.81 s ± 35.20 s vs. 126.70 s ± 56.60 s; p<0.0001); IOP measurements with RBT in both study arms were higher than those with GAT (15.20 ± 2.74 mmHg vs. 13.25 ± 2.47 mmHg, p=0.0247 and 16.76 ± 3.99 mmHg vs. 13.92 ± 2.08 mmHg, p=0.003, respectively). No difference was observed between RBT and GAT regarding the corneal epithelial damage caused by tonometry. IOP measurement is feasible in a greater number of children with RBT, and the examination was faster than that for GAT. Compared with GAT, RBT tended to overestimate the IOP. None of the methods induced marked corneal epithelial defects. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 26% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
#322
of 446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,533
of 359,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
#28
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 359,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.