↓ Skip to main content

Correlations between choroidal abnormalities, Lisch nodules, and age in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Correlations between choroidal abnormalities, Lisch nodules, and age in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2014
DOI 10.2147/opth.s56327
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shinji Makino, Hironobu Tampo, Yusuke Arai, Hiroto Obata

Abstract

To evaluate correlations between choroidal abnormalities, Lisch nodules, and age in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), we examined ten cases with NF1 using near-infrared reflectance imaging. Patients ranged in age from 4 to 39 years. The angle used for near-infrared reflectance imaging was 55°. We counted the total number of choroidal abnormalities in an area within a 55° angle centered on the fovea and the total number of Lisch nodules on the iris by slit-lamp examination. No positive correlation was found between the number of Lisch nodules and patient age (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient ρ=0.117, P=0.7414). Choroidal abnormalities tended to increase with age (ρ=0.6150), but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.0650). A positive correlation was found between the number of choroidal abnormalities and Lisch nodules (ρ=0.783, P=0.0267). In conclusion, choroidal abnormalities tend to increase with patient age and are correlated with the number of Lisch nodules.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 25%
Other 2 17%
Unspecified 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 58%
Unspecified 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
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 20 January 2014.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,846
of 319,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#16
of 68 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 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 319,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 67% of its contemporaries.