ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2019
Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Global Consensus on Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases Agreements Reached on Subclinical Keratoconus.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Keratoconus Diagnosis: From Fundamentals to Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of different keratoconus detection indices of pentacam in paediatric eyes.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Accuracy of tomographic and biomechanical parameters in detecting unilateral post-LASIK keratoectasia and fellow eyes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Performances of Corneal Topography and Tomography in the Diagnosis of Subclinical and Clinical Keratoconus.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Benefits of using corneal topography to choose subjective refraction technique in keratoconus (RE-CON): a prospective comparative crossover clinical study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Article
- Current Developments in Corneal Topography and Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Evaluation of corneal topographic, tomographic and biomechanical indices for detecting clinical and subclinical keratoconus: a comprehensive three-device study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of corneal topography and tomography in fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients for early detection of subclinical keratoconus.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Comparison of Corneal Tomography Parameters in the Diagnosis of Keratoconus in Early and Late Pediatric Age Group.Middle East African journal of 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare data obtained by Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) from both eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients and normal controls. Materials and Methods: This study was performed by retrospective chart review of 919 keratoconus patients. From these patients, 31 keratoconus eyes of 31 patients with unilateral keratoconus (Group 1), 31 normal fellow eyes of these patients (Group 2), and 30 right eyes of 30 normal controls (Group 3) were included in the study. Detailed ophthalmologic examination and Pentacam parameters at initial examination were analyzed and relationships between Groups 1, 2, and 3 were statistically evaluated. ROC curve analysis was also performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of parameters that could be used to differentiate Group 2 from Groups 1 and 3. Results: The mean age was 30.07±11.00 (15-60) in Group 1-2 patients and 32.33±9.30 (18-45) in Group 3 patients (p=0.392). In comparison of Pentacam data, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 in all parameters except corneal volume (p<0.05). Group 1 and Group 3 were significantly different in all evaluated parameters (p<0.05). Steep keratometry, flat keratometry, mean keratometry, and posterior elevation (PE) were statistically similar between Groups 2 and 3 (p>0.05), while the other evaluated parameters differed significantly (p<0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the difference in corneal thickness between the apex and thinnest point, PI, index of surface variance, index of height asymmetry and inferior-superior had the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating Group 2 from Group 3, while CCTapex, CCTmin, PE, and Rmin had the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating Group 2 from Group 1. Conclusion: In patients with unilateral keratoconus, fellow eyes appear to not be completely normal. Thus, it is recommended that fellow eyes also be evaluated in every examination of unilateral keratoconus patients.
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.