ArticlePloS one2020
A clinical method for estimating the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of Atomic Force Microscopy Cantilever Specifications for Pressure Measurement in Biological Tissues.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- 3D printed needleless injector based on thermocavitation: analysis of impact and penetration depth in skin phantoms in a repetitive regime.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025Article
- Comparison of cellular, mechanical, and optical properties of different polymers for corneal tissue engineering.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2025Article
- In Vivo Optical Coherence Elastography Unveils Spatial Variation of Human Corneal Stiffness.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2024Article
- FEA-Based Stress-Strain Barometers as Forecasters for Corneal Refractive Power Change in Orthokeratology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Simultaneous tensile and shear measurement of the human cornea in vivo using S0- and A0-wave optical coherence elastography.Acta biomaterialia · 2024Article
- Creation of a proof-of-concept 3D printed corneal trauma simulation model.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo develop a method, using current clinical instrumentation, to estimate the Young's modulus of the human cornea in vivo.
methodsCentral corneal curvature (CCC), central corneal thickness(CCT), intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured with the Goldmann tonometer (IOPG) and the Pascal Dynamic Corneal Tonometer(PDCT) in one eye of 100 normal young human subjects (21.07 ± 2.94 years) in vivo. The Orssengo and Pye algorithm was used to calculate the Young's modulus of the corneas of these subjects.
resultsThe Young's modulus(E) of the corneas of the subjects using the PDCT and IOPG results (Ecalc) was 0.25 ± 0.10MPa, and without the PDCT results (Eiopg) was 0.29 ± 0.06MPa. The difference in these results is due to the difference in tonometry results between the two instruments, as the mean PDCT result for the subjects was 16.89 ± 2.49mmHg and the IOPG result 15.06 ± 2.71mmHg. E was affected by the CCC of the subjects but more particularly by the CCT and IOP measurements. Corneal stiffness results are also presented.
conclusionTwo methods have been developed to estimate the Young's modulus of the human cornea in vivo using current clinical instrumentation. One method (Ecalc) is applicable to the general corneal condition, and Eiopg to the normal cornea, and these results can be used to calculate corneal stiffness.
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.