↓ Skip to main content

Goldmann tonometer error correcting prism: clinical evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Goldmann tonometer error correcting prism: clinical evaluation
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s135272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean McCafferty, Garrett Lim, William Duncan, Eniko T Enikov, Jim Schwiegerling, Jason Levine, Corin Kew

Abstract

Clinically evaluate a modified applanating surface Goldmann tonometer prism designed to substantially negate errors due to patient variability in biomechanics. A modified Goldmann prism with a correcting applanation tonometry surface (CATS) was mathematically optimized to minimize the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement error due to patient variability in corneal thickness, stiffness, curvature, and tear film adhesion force. A comparative clinical study of 109 eyes measured IOP with CATS and Goldmann prisms. The IOP measurement differences between the CATS and Goldmann prisms were correlated to corneal thickness, hysteresis, and curvature. The CATS tonometer prism in correcting for Goldmann central corneal thickness (CCT) error demonstrated a reduction to <±2 mmHg in 97% of a standard CCT population. This compares to only 54% with CCT error <±2 mmHg using the Goldmann prism. Equal reductions of ~50% in errors due to corneal rigidity and curvature were also demonstrated. The results validate the CATS prism's improved accuracy and expected reduced sensitivity to Goldmann errors without IOP bias as predicted by mathematical modeling. The CATS replacement for the Goldmann prism does not change Goldmann measurement technique or interpretation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Engineering 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,016,327
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#207
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,121
of 325,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#7
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 325,074 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.