↓ Skip to main content

Intraocular Pressure Is a Poor Predictor of Hydration Status following Intermittent Exercise in the Heat

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Intraocular Pressure Is a Poor Predictor of Hydration Status following Intermittent Exercise in the Heat
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian B. Stewart, Brittany Dias, David N. Borg, Aaron J. E. Bach, Beatrix Feigl, Joseph T. Costello

Abstract

Current hydration assessments involve biological fluids that are either compromised in dehydrated individuals or require laboratory equipment, making timely results unfeasible. The eye has been proposed as a potential site to provide a field-based hydration measure. The present study evaluated the efficacy and sensitivity of intraocular pressure (IOP) to assess hydration status. Twelve healthy males undertook two 150 min walking trials in 40°C 20% relative humidity. One trial matched fluid intake to body mass loss (control, CON) and the other had fluid restricted (dehydrated, DEH). IOP (rebound tonometry) and hydration status (nude body mass and serum osmolality) were determined every 30 min. Body mass and serum osmolality were significantly (p < 0.05) different between trials at all-time points following baseline. Body mass losses reached 2.5 ± 0.2% and serum osmolality 299 ± 5 mOsmol.kg(-1) in DEH. A significant trial by time interaction was observed for IOP (p = 0.042), indicating that over the duration of the trials IOP declined to a greater extent in the DEH compared with the CON trial. Compared with baseline measurements IOP was reduced during DEH (150 min: -2.7 ± 1.9 mm Hg; p < 0.05) but remained stable in CON (150 min: -0.3 ± 2.4 mm Hg). However, using an IOP value of 13.2 mm Hg to predict a 2% body mass loss resulted in only 57% of the data being correctly classified (sensitivity 55% and specificity 57%). The use of ΔIOP (-2.4 mm Hg) marginally improved the predictive ability with 77% of the data correctly classified (sensitivity: 55%; specificity: 81%). The present study provides evidence that the large inter-individual variability in baseline IOP and in the IOP response to progressive dehydration, prevents the use of IOP as an acute single assessment marker of hydration status.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Sports and Recreations 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,671,418
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,362
of 13,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,743
of 420,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#67
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 420,290 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 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 70% of its contemporaries.