ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2015
Comparison of Standard Versus Wide-Field Composite Images of the Corneal Subbasal Layer by In Vivo Confocal Microscopy.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal nerve imaging in systemic neuropathy: A minireview of experimental and precision medicine applications.World journal of experimental medicine · 2026Review
- A novel method for standardised imaging of corneal subbasal nerves by in vivo confocal microscopy - a pilot validation study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Methods for the evaluation of corneal nerve fibres in diabetes mellitus by in vivo confocal microscopy: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy of the Cornea in Diagnosing Small Fibre Neuropathy: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Increased dendritic cell density and altered morphology in allergic conjunctivitis.Eye (London, England) · 2023Observational
- Mosaic vs. Single Image Analysis with Confocal Microscopy of the Corneal Nerve Plexus for Diagnosis of Early Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Corneal Confocal Microscopy: The Start of a Beautiful Relationship.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Evaluation of corneal nerves and dendritic cells by in vivo confocal microscopy after Descemet's membrane keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Corneal Confocal Microscopy and the Nervous System: Introduction to the Special Issue.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Semiautomated and Automated Quantitative Analysis of Corneal Sub-Basal Nerves in Patients With DED With Ocular Pain Using IVCM.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Defining an Optimal Sample Size for Corneal Epithelial Immune Cell Analysis UsingFrontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Corneal nerve structure in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome in China.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Parkinson's disease with restless legs syndrome-an in vivo corneal confocal microscopy study.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2021Article
- Corneal Confocal Microscopy to Image Small Nerve Fiber Degeneration: Ophthalmology Meets Neurology.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Correlation of corneal immune cell changes with clinical severity in dry eye disease: An in vivo confocal microscopy study.The ocular surface · 2021Article
- Region of interest and directional analysis of subbasal nerves in wide-area corneal nerve plexus mosaics in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A Review of Imaging Biomarkers of the Ocular Surface.Eye & contact lens · 2020Review
- C-Fiber Assays in the Cornea vs. Skin.Brain sciences · 2019Review
- Efficacy of autologous serum tears for treatment of neuropathic corneal pain.The ocular surface · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether the densities of corneal subbasal nerves and epithelial immune dendritiform cells (DCs) are comparable between a set of three representative standard images of in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and the wide-field mapped composite IVCM images.
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional, and masked study included 110 eyes of 58 patients seen in a neurology clinic who underwent laser-scanning IVCM (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3) of the central cornea. Densities of subbasal corneal nerves and DCs were compared between the average of three representative standard images and the wide-field mapped composite images, which were reconstructed by automated mapping.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the average of three representative standard images (0.16 mm2 each) and the wide-field composite images (1.29 ± 0.64 mm2) in terms of mean subbasal nerve density (17.10 ± 6.10 vs. 17.17 ± 5.60 mm/mm2, respectively, P = 0.87) and mean subbasal DC density (53.2 ± 67.8 vs. 49.0 ± 54.3 cells/mm2, respectively, P = 0.43). However, there were notable differences in subbasal nerve and DC densities between these two methods in eyes with very low nerve density or very high DC density.
conclusionsThere are no significant differences in the mean subbasal nerve and DC densities between the average values of three representative standard IVCM images and wide-field mapped composite images. Therefore, these standard images can be used in clinical studies to accurately measure cellular structures in the subbasal layer.
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.