Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32848355›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Corneal Hysteresis as a Biomarker of Glaucoma: Current Insights.

Larae Zimprich, Jacob Diedrich, Adam Bleeker, Justin A Schweitzer

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Biomechanical Correlations Between the Cornea and the Optic Nerve Head.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Larae ZimprichVance Thompson Vision, Sioux Falls, SD 57108, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3851-5870
Jacob DiedrichMijangos Optometry, Sioux City, IA 51106, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1249-8806
Adam BleekerUniversity of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Vermillion, SD 57069, USA.
Justin A SchweitzerVance Thompson Vision, Sioux Falls, SD 57108, USA.
Vance Thompson Vision · USUniversity of South Dakota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis and management of glaucoma has long been dependent on making decisions based on family history, optic nerve head evaluation, intraocular pressure, visual field testing, and optical coherence testing. Other pieces to aid in understanding glaucoma have presented throughout the years, including the role of corneal thickness. The discussion and debate on the mechanism of glaucoma have been attributed to resistance at the level of the conventional outflow pathway, perfusion pressure to the optic nerve head, cerebral spinal fluid pressure, and many more. Another piece that has emerged is corneal hysteresis, an assessment of the cornea's ability to absorb and dissipate energy. There is abundant published literature supporting corneal hysteresis being associated with the presence and severity of glaucoma, the structural and functional progression of glaucoma, and the conversion to glaucoma. The supported data in these studies add another piece, corneal hysteresis, to consider in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma.

Indexed as

corneal biomechanicscorneal hysteresisglaucoma

Identifiers

PMID32848355
PMCPMC7429407
OpenAlexW3047894609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.