↓ Skip to main content

Does the type of treatment have an influence on utility values in a glaucoma population?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Does the type of treatment have an influence on utility values in a glaucoma population?
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s92653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Paletta Guedes, Vanessa Paletta Guedes, Sirley Freitas, Alfredo Chaoubah

Abstract

To assess the impact of glaucoma therapy on utility values in a glaucoma population. A cross-sectional study of consecutive glaucoma patients was conducted. Utility values were obtained using the time trade-off method. Visual function variables (visual acuity and mean deviation in the better eye) and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics (age, sex, race, educational level, type of glaucoma, current and past glaucoma treatments, and comorbidities) were also obtained for statistical analysis. We divided the patients into three groups: medical treatment (group 1), surgical treatment (group 2), and mixed surgical and medical treatment (group 3). Mean age of the study population (n=225) was 65.7 years. After controlling for glaucoma stage (early, moderate, and advanced), the difference among the groups in mean utility values was not statistically significant. Number of medications per patient, type of medication, or type of surgical technique did not have an impact on the utility values. Our findings suggest that the type of therapy did not affect the utility values in a glaucoma population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 19%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Computer Science 3 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%

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 09 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,236,953
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,223
of 3,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,152
of 266,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#25
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,184 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 266,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 57% of its contemporaries.