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 |
Distance stereotesting using vision test charts for intermittent exotropia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s89727 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Noriko Nishikawa, Satoshi Ishiko, Ikuko Yamaga, Miho Sato, Akitoshi Yoshida |
| Abstract |
To assess the role of distance stereoacuity using the System Chart SC-1600 Pola (SC) to evaluate intermittent exotropia (IXT). Stereoacuity testing was performed in 28 children with IXT and 25 age-matched control subjects using the SC test, the distance Randot stereotest for distance, and the Titmus stereotest for near stereoacuity. Ocular alignment control was defined using the revised Newcastle Control Score (NCS). The correlations between the stereotests and NCS were evaluated using Spearman's correlation test. Distance stereoacuity was better in both groups when using the SC test than when using the distance Randot stereotest (median: patients with IXT, 90 arcsec and 400 arcsec; control, 60 arcsec and 100 arcsec; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The two test scores were not correlated in either group (IXT: r s=-0.003, P=0.99; control: r s=0.37, P=0.07). A positive correlation was found between the distance NCS and SC test scores (r s=0.49, P=0.004) and the total NCS and SC test scores (r s=0.49, P=0.004). However, no correlation was observed between any NCS and the distance Randot stereotest or Titmus stereotest scores. Stereoacuity, as measured by the SC test, may be an objective measure of IXT control. |
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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,322
of 276,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#66
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 276,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.