Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29490348›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2018

Corneal Nerve Fractal Dimension: A Novel Corneal Nerve Metric for the Diagnosis of Diabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathy.

Xin Chen, Jim Graham, Ioannis N Petropoulos, Georgios Ponirakis, Omar Asghar, Uazman Alam, Andrew Marshall, Maryam Ferdousi, Shazli Azmi, Nathan Efron and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. CornealFrontiers in medicine · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Xin ChenSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Jim GrahamCentre for Imaging Sciences, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ioannis N PetropoulosWeill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Division of Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Georgios PonirakisWeill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Division of Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
Omar AsgharCardiovascular Sciences, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Uazman AlamDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Andrew MarshallDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Maryam FerdousiCardiovascular Sciences, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Shazli AzmiCardiovascular Sciences, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Nathan EfronInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Rayaz A MalikWeill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Division of Medicine, Doha, Qatar.
University of Manchester · GBWeill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QAAintree University Hospital · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), an in vivo ophthalmic imaging modality, is a noninvasive and objective imaging biomarker for identifying small nerve fiber damage. We have evaluated the diagnostic performance of previously established CCM parameters to a novel automated measure of corneal nerve complexity called the corneal nerve fiber fractal dimension (ACNFrD). Methods: A total of 176 subjects (84 controls and 92 patients with type 1 diabetes) with and without diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) underwent CCM. Fractal dimension analysis was performed on CCM images using purpose-built corneal nerve analysis software, and compared with previously established manual and automated corneal nerve fiber measurements. Results: Manual and automated subbasal corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) (P < 0.0001), length (CNFL) (P < 0.0001), branch density (CNBD) (P < 0.05), and ACNFrD (P < 0.0001) were significantly reduced in patients with DSPN compared to patients without DSPN. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for identifying DSPN were comparable: 0.77 for automated CNFD, 0.74 for automated CNFL, 0.69 for automated CNBD, and 0.74 for automated ACNFrD. Conclusions: ACNFrD shows comparable diagnostic efficiency to identify diabetic patients with and without DSPN.

Indexed as

FractalsAdultAgedCorneaDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetic NeuropathiesFemaleHumansMaleMicroscopy, ConfocalMiddle AgedNerve FibersPolyneuropathiesROC CurveTrigeminal Nerve Diseases

Identifiers

PMID29490348
PMCPMC5830988
OpenAlexW2794173078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.