↓ Skip to main content

Internal Astigmatism in Myopes and Non‐myopes: Compensation or Constant?

Overview of attention for article published in Optometry and Vision Science, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
24 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.
Article details
Title
Internal Astigmatism in Myopes and Non‐myopes: Compensation or Constant?
Published in
Optometry and Vision Science, September 2016
DOI 10.1097/opx.0000000000000946
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To examine internal astigmatism (IA) in myopes and non-myopes using a new method to assess compensation of corneal astigmatism (CA) by IA, to look for predictors of high IA in young adult myopes, and to determine if as CA changes IA changes to reduce refractive astigmatism (RA) in an active compensatory process in myopes. Right eye keratometry and cycloplegic autorefraction were measured annually over 14 years in 367 myopes and once in 204 non-myopes age- (mean 21.91 ± 1.47 years), gender-, and ethnicity-matched to myopes at year 12. CA and RA at the corneal plane were expressed as J0, J45. IA = RA - CA. Inverse power transformation provided cylinder power and axis of IA for the compensation factor (IA/CA). Analyses included (1) paired and unpaired t-tests (refractive data), (2) chi-square tests (distributions of compensation factor), (3) logistic regression analysis (predictors of high IA), and (4) linear mixed models (time effect on RA, CA, and IA). The magnitude of IAJ0 varied by refractive error (myopes -0.25 ± 0.24 vs. non-myopes -0.32 ± 0.21, p < 0.001). Compensation of CA by IA was poorer in myopes than non-myopes (χ p < 0.001). When matched by CA, compensation remained poorer in myopes than non-myopes (χ all p ≤ 0.04). Within each refractive group, compensation was better when CA was low than high (χ p < 0.001). When CA was low in myopes, high IA (≥1.00D) was less likely (p = 0.01). Longitudinal follow-up of myopes found no evidence for an active compensatory role for IA as CA increased over time. There were differences in IAJ0 by ethnicity over time (p < 0.0001). In myopic and non-myopic eyes with low amounts of CA, IA may reduce CA's contribution to RA, but IA is not a constant. However, there is no evidence for an active compensatory role for IA reducing CA in myopes.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 12 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#781,978
of 28,833,811 outputs
Outputs from Optometry and Vision Science
#54
of 2,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,827
of 316,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Optometry and Vision Science
#3
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,833,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 316,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.