ArticleInternational ophthalmology2018
IOP measurement in silicone oil tamponade eyes by Corvis ST tonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: Glaucoma complicating vitreoretinal surgery!Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Corneal Vibrations during Intraocular Pressure Measurement with an Air-Puff Method.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) of eyes following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined with intravitreal silicone oil (SO) tamponade by Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (CST), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and non-contact tonometry (NCT).
methodsThirty-eight participants who had undergone PPV combined with SO tamponade to treat vitreoretinal diseases were enrolled. Postoperative IOP measurements were obtained using CST, NCT and GAT. Inter-device agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. The correlation coefficient was used to describe the potential postoperative factors affecting the postoperative IOP differences between each device.
resultsBland-Altman analysis revealed the bias between CST and GAT, between CST and NCT, and between GAT and NCT to be -0.2, 2.1 and 2.4 mmHg, respectively. CST and GAT correlated well with each other. NCT values were lower than those of GAT and CST (all p < 0.05), whereas CST values did not differ from the GAT readings. Central corneal thickness, corneal biomechanical properties and age showed significant correlation with the differences of CST-NCT and GAT-NCT.
conclusionsIn SO tamponade eyes, NCT obtains lower IOP than other tonometry techniques, and CST is highly consistent with GAT. CST offers an optional non-contact method for measuring postoperative IOP in SO tamponade eyes.
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.