Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31921937›Full record

ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2020

Cornea modelling.

Anna Pandolfi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Contact lens fitting and changes in the tear film dynamics: mathematical and computational models review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Review
  6. Blast injury: Impact to the cornea.Experimental eye research · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

1 author.

Anna PandolfiDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, Milano, 20133 Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7084-7456

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomechanics introduces numerous technologies to support clinical practice in ophthalmology, with the goal of improving surgical outcomes and to develop new advanced technologies with minimum impact on clinical training. Unfortunately, a few misconceptions on the way that computational methods should be applied to living tissues contributes to a lack of confidence towards computer-based approaches.

methodsCorneal biomechanics relies on sound theories of mechanics, including concepts of equilibrium, geometrical measurements, and complex material behaviors. The peculiarities of biological tissues require the consideration of multi-physics, typical of the eye environment, and to adopt customized geometrical models constructed on the basis of advanced optical imaging and in-vivo testing.

resultsPatient-specific models are able to predict the outcomes of refractive surgery and to exploit the results of in-vivo test to characterize the material properties of the corneal tissue.

conclusionsCorneal biomechanics can become an important support to clinical practice, provided that methods are based on the actual multi-physics and use customized geometrical and mechanical models.

Indexed as

Corneal biomechanicsPhysiologic configurationRefractive surgery modellingTonometry modelling

Identifiers

PMID31921937
PMCPMC6945707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.