ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2020
Mutual comparative analysis: a new topography-guided custom ablation protocol referencing subjective refraction to modify corneal topographic data.
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 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.
- Frequency-dependent associations of contrast sensitivity and corneal aberrations after SMILE PRO in eyes with high astigmatism.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Application of Surgical Protocols for the Treatment of Highly Irregular Astigmatism with Topographic Guided Ablation in a Case of Post-LASIK Ectasia.International medical case reports journal · 2025Article
- Topography-guided excimer laser ablation in refractive surgery.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral planning algorithms have been developed for topography-guided custom ablation treatment (T-CAT), but each has its own deficiencies. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the potential of a novel mutual comparative analysis (MCA) informed by manifest refraction and corneal topographic data and the patient's subjective perception in correcting ametropia.
methodsThis retrospective review included patients with significant preoperative differences in the power or axis of astigmatism according to the manifest refraction and corneal topographic data (power > 0.75 D and/or axis > 10°). T-CAT planning was designed using MCA. Follow-ups were conducted for at least 6 months.
resultsSeventy-nine patients (121 eyes) were included. The mean preoperative deviation in the astigmatic power and axis were 0.72 ± 0.43 D and 20.18 ± 23.68°, respectively. The average oculus residual astigmatism (ORA) was 0.81 ± 0.32 D (range: 0.08-1.66 D). Six months postoperatively, the mean spherical equivalent refraction was 0.04 ± 0.42 D, and the mean cylinder was - 0.27 ± 0.24 D. The mean efficacy and safety indices were 1.10 and 1.15, respectively. The uncorrected distance visual acuity in 92% of the eyes was the same or better than the corrected distance visual acuity. The angle of error was ±5° in 61% of eyes and ± 15° in 84% of eyes. Residual astigmatism was ≤0.5 D in 91% of eyes. Optical quality and photopic contrast sensitivity did not change significantly (
conclusionsThe MCA demonstrated safety, efficacy, accuracy, predictability, and stability and can be used as a complementary and feasible method for T-CAT.
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.