↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Avoiding Clinical Misinterpretation and Artifacts of Optical Coherence Tomography Analysis of the Optic Nerve, Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer, and Ganglion Cell Layer
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, September 2016
DOI 10.1097/wno.0000000000000422
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has become an important tool for diagnosing optic nerve disease. The structural details and reproducibility of OCT continues to improve with further advances in technology. However, artifacts and misinterpretation of OCT can lead to clinical misdiagnosis of diseases if they go unrecognized. A literature review using PubMed combined with clinical and research experience. We describe the most common artifacts and errors in interpretation seen on OCT in both optic nerve and ganglion cell analyses. We provide examples of the artifacts, discuss the causes, and provide methods of detecting them. In addition, we discuss a systematic approach to OCT analysis to facilitate the recognition of artifacts and to avoid clinical misinterpretation. While OCT is invaluable in diagnosing optic nerve disease, we need to be cognizant of the artifacts that can occur with OCT. Failure to recognize some of these artifacts can lead to misdiagnoses and inappropriate investigations.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Other 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 40 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 42%
Engineering 5 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 16 July 2024.
All research outputs
#3,476,555
of 32,923,773 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology
#76
of 2,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,396
of 328,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,923,773 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,015 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 328,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 94% of its contemporaries.