Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25537685›Full record

ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2015

Comparison of objective and subjective refractive surgery screening parameters between regular and high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices.

J Bradley Randleman, Jihan Akhtar, Michael J Lynn, Renato Ambrósio, William J Dupps, Ronald R Krueger, Stephen D Klyce

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02698709 (Astigmatic Vector Analysis of Posterior Corneal Surface - a Comparison Among Healthy, Forme Fruste and Overt Keratoconus Corneas), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02698709 completednot on this map

Astigmatic Vector Analysis of Posterior Corneal Surface - a Comparison Among Healthy, Forme Fruste and Overt Keratoconus Corneas

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2015 to 2015Enrolled698ConditionsKeratoconusArmsAnalysis of anterior and posterior corneal surfaces
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J Bradley RandlemanFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: jrandle@emory.edu.
Jihan AkhtarFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil.
Michael J LynnFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil.
Renato AmbrósioFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil.
William J DuppsFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil.
Ronald R KruegerFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil.
Stephen D KlyceFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (Randleman, Akhtar) and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Lynn), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and Emory Vision (Randleman, Akhtar), Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute (Dupps, Krueger), the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), the Lerner Research Institute and the Transplant Center (Dupps), Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Dupps), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, the Department of Ophthalmology (Klyce), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group (Ambrósio), Rio de Janeiro, the Department for Ophthalmology of the Federal University of São Paulo (Ambrósio), São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

P30-Core Grant for Vision Research Core CP30EY006360 · NEI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI NICKERSON, JOHN M · 1986 to 2025
$15.3M
Corneal Elastography and Patient-Specific Modeling for Simulation-based TherapyR01EY023381 · NEI · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI DUPPS, WILLIAM JOSEPH · 2013 to 2017
$2.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY006360NEI NIH HHS P30EY06360NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023381
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare objective and subjective metrics from regular and high-resolution Scheimpflug devices (Pentacam) to determine their equivalence and interchangeability for refractive surgery screening.

settingEmory Vision at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

designRetrospective comparative case series.

methodsEyes of consecutive screened refractive surgery patients were evaluated with high-resolution and regular Scheimpflug devices. Objective parameters evaluated included keratometry (K) values, central corneal thickness (CCT), and device-generated keratoconus screening indices. Masked expert reviewers subjectively graded images as normal, suspicious, or abnormal.

resultsOne hundred eyes of 50 patients were evaluated. The mean K values were not significantly different (anterior K: high resolution 1.21 diopters [D] ± 1.13 (SD) versus regular 1.15 ± 1.16 D, P = 0.73; posterior K: 0.34 ± 0.23 D versus regular 0.35 ± 0.23 D, P = .67). The mean CCT was significantly thinner in the high-resolution group (514.7 ± 26.6 μm versus 527.6 ± 27.6 μm (P < .0001) with limits of agreement of -12.9 to +17.5 μm. Most keratoconus screening indices were more suspicious with the high-resolution device than with the regular device except the indices of height asymmetry and height deviation. Subjectively, 60% of cases received the same score, high resolution was more suspicious in 28% of cases, and regular was more suspicious in 12% of cases; there was only slight subjective agreement between technologies (κ = 0.26 to 0.31).

conclusionsRegular and high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices generated different objective values and significantly different subjective interpretations with poor inter-reviewer agreement. The high-resolution device provided a more conservative overall output. For refractive surgical screening, the 2 devices are not interchangeable. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Proprietary or commercial disclosures are listed after the references.

Indexed as

Corneal Surgery, LaserDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalAdultCorneaCorneal PachymetryCorneal TopographyDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansKeratoconusMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPhotographyRefractive ErrorsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25537685
PMCPMC4545631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.