ArticleBiomedical optics express2017
Comparison of four methods of surface roughness assessment of corneal stromal bed after lamellar cutting.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrafast Laser Patterning of Metals Commonly Used in Medical Industry: Surface Roughness Control with Energy Gradient Pulse Sequences.Micromachines · 2023Article
- An optional surgical technique for obtaining lamellar donor grafts: a pilot study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Eye bank versus surgeon prepared Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty tissues: Influence on adhesion force in a pilot study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Ultrastructural Analysis of Rehydrated Human Donor Corneas After Air-Drying and Dissection by Femtosecond Laser.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Bioadhesion in the oral cavity and approaches for biofilm management by surface modifications.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Review
- High-throughput 3D bioprinting of corneal stromal equivalents.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2020Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Corneal lamellar cutting with a blade or femtosecond laser (FSL) is commonly used during refractive surgery and corneal grafts. Surface roughness of the cutting plane influences postoperative visual acuity but is difficult to assess reliably. For the first time, we compared chromatic confocal microscopy (CCM) with scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy (AFM) and focus-variation microscopy (FVM) to characterize surfaces of variable roughness after FSL cutting. The small area allowed by AFM hinders conclusive roughness analysis, especially with irregular cuts. FVM does not always differentiate between smooth and rough surfaces. Finally, CCM allows analysis of large surfaces and differentiates between surface states.
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.