Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2015
Comparison of intraocular pressure measurement with Scheimpflug-based noncontact tonometer with and without hydrogel contact lenses.
Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeatability and agreement of five imaging systems for measuring anterior segment parameters in healthy eyes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2017Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective was to determine the repeatability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made through a soft contact lens (CL) using the Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry in healthy subjects.
methodsThis prospective, randomized, single-center study included one eye of 88 subjects (40 male and 48 female). Only participants without glaucoma or any other ocular pathology were included in this study. Three consecutive IOP measurements by the Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry were performed with and without daily disposable hydrogel CLs (-0.50 DS) (Dailies-nelfilcon A, 69% water, 8.7 mm base curve, 14 mm diameter, center thickness 0.10 mm) by a single operator. To avoid any bias arising from diurnal variation, all measurements were made at a similar time of day (11 am ± 1 h). The repeatability of IOP measurements using the Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry with and without CLs was evaluated using Pearson's correlation analysis. Bland-Altman plotting was used to assess the limits of agreement between the measurements with and without CLs.
resultsThe mean (± standard deviation) IOPs with and without CL were 13.80 ± 2.70 and 13.79 ± 2.54 mm of Hg respectively. The mean difference was 0.01 ± 0.16 (95% confidence interval, +1.97 to - 2.00) mm Hg. Statistical analysis via paired t-test showed no statistical difference between the two groups with (P = 0.15). A good correlation was found for IOP measurements with and without CL (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). Good test-retest reliability was found when IOP was measured with and without CL.
conclusionThere was no significant difference between IOP measured with and without CLs by Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.