ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2018
Custom air puff-derived biomechanical variables in a refractive surgery screening setting: Study from 2 centers.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 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.
- Motion-Tracking Brillouin Microscopy Evaluation of Normal, Keratoconic, and Post-Laser Vision Correction Corneas.American journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Motion-tracking Brillouin microscopy for in-vivo corneal biomechanics mapping.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Spatially-resolved Brillouin spectroscopy reveals biomechanical abnormalities in mild to advanced keratoconus in vivo.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the ability of air puff-derived biomechanical variables to predict surgeon-perceived candidacy for laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
settingCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Emory Eye Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
designRetrospective case series.
methodsData were collected from refractive surgery screening examinations by 2 surgeons at 2 centers. Disqualified cases (19 eyes and 28 eyes from each surgeon) were judged not to be candidates based on available data including standard variables from the Ocular Response Analyzer. Controls consisted of LASIK candidates (n = 26 and 23). Three custom biomechanical variables not available during screening were calculated and compared by group and surgeon.
resultsThe hysteresis loop area was significantly different between disqualified cases and controls for both surgeons (Surgeon 1: controls, 121.50 ± 25.38 [SD], disqualified, 107.62 ± 18.50, P = .04; Surgeon 2: controls, 135.89 ± 22.47, disqualified, 106.11 ± 16.40, P < .001). The area under the curves of the receiver operating characteristics and the cutoff values were statistically significant for the concavity minimum and hysteresis loop area for Surgeon 1 and for all variables except concavity minimum for Surgeon 2. The hysteresis loop area had the highest odds ratio (Surgeon 1, 4.48, Surgeon 2, 20.00). Adjusted R
conclusionsThe hysteresis loop area was predictive of which patients were disqualified for LASIK at different sites. Certain measures of the corneal dynamic response to an air puff might serve as correlates to clinically perceived ectasia risk.
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.