ArticleJournal of current ophthalmology2018
Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in pellucid marginal degeneration.
Article in Journal of current ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update on pellucid marginal degeneration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Keratoconus and Corneal Ectasia with Relatively Low Keratometry.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Systemic and Ocular Associations of Keratoconus.Expert review of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Enhanced Diagnostics for Corneal Ectatic Diseases: The Whats, the Whys, and the Hows.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Corneal Biomechanical Assessment with Ultra-High-Speed Scheimpflug Imaging During Non-Contact Tonometry: A Prospective Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Review
- Biomechanical diagnostics of the cornea.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2020Review
- Corneal hysteresis and glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 2019Review
- Corneal biomechanical parameters in pellucid marginal degeneration.Journal of current ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in pellucid marginal degeneration.Journal of current ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in pellucid marginal corneal degeneration.Journal of current ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Corneal Cross-Linking in Pellucid Marginal Degeneration: Evaluation after Five Years.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) in pellucid marginal degeneration (PMD), keratoconus (KCN), and normal eyes using the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).
methodsIn this retrospective study, corneal biomechanical parameters were measured in patients with PMD (
resultsThe mean CH was 8.91 mmHg ± 1.05 [standard deviation (SD)], 8.43 ± 0.78, and 10.89 ± 1.08 in the PMD, KCN, and normal group, respectively. Also, the mean CRF was 8.21 ± 1.35, 7.19 ± 1.11, and 10.69 ± 1.41 in the PMD, KCN, and normal group, respectively. ANOVA showed differences in the mean CH, CRF, and CH-CRF between three groups (
conclusionsThis study presented the values of corneal biomechanics for PMD using the ORA. The results of the ORA were markedly different between PMD, KCN, and normal 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.