Trial reportPloS one2020
Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05161052 (Assessment of Corneal Stiffness Parameters in Keratoconus After Corneal Collagen Cross Linking Using Dynamic Scheimpflug Technology and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 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.
Assessment of Corneal Stiffness Parameters in Keratoconus After Corneal Collagen Cross Linking Using Dynamic Scheimpflug Technology and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stability selection machine learning identifies biomechanical markers for subclinical idiopathic corneal endothelial abnormalities.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Corneal Biomechanics Before and After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Patients with Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Challenges in Glaucoma Management in High Myopia After Refractive Surgery: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Corneal Biomechanics in Glaucoma: Current Evidence for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Prognosis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Investigating intraocular pressure fluctuations using corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology tonometry (CST) with varied resting intervals.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of Tonometry Methods in Keratoconic Eyes Following Intracorneal Ring Segments Implantation: A Comparative Study.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Observational
- Clinical Assessment of Automated Non-Contact Tonometer: Interchangeability with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Repeatability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Using Three Different Methods (Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT), Corvis ST, and iCare) Following Penetrating Keratoplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The relationship between intraocular pressure and glaucoma: An evolving concept.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2024Review
- Biomechanical changes of the cornea after orbital decompression in thyroid-associated orbitopathy measured by corvis ST.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Establishing Standardization Guidelines For Finite-Element Optomechanical Simulations of Refractive Laser Surgeries: An Application to Photorefractive Keratectomy.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST, and the influence of corneal and anterior scleral thickness.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Measuring intraocular pressure with OCT: the first approach.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- The Changes in Ocular Biomechanical Response Parameters and Intraocular Pressure After Surgical Treatment for Thyroid Eye Disease.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Development and validation of an intuitive biomechanics-based method for intraocular pressure measurement: a modal analysis approach.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Agreement of ocular response analyzer cornea compensated IOP with corvis ST biomechanical IOP following Femtosecond Laser-assisted LASIK.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Biomechanical homeostasis in ocular diseases: A mini-review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Intraocular pressure after myopic laser refractive surgery measured with a new Goldmann convex prism: correlations with GAT and ORA.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Three Tonometers in Measuring Intraocular Pressure in Eyes That Underwent Myopic Laser in situ Keratomileusis and Photorefractive Keratectomy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- How to Measure Intraocular Pressure: An Updated Review of Various Tonometers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effects of various anatomical structures on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and noncontact tonometer (NCT), as well as to assess the interchangeability among the four types of IOP measurement: IOP-GAT, IOP-NCT, IOP-Corvis, and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP-Corvis), with a particular focus on bIOP-Corvis. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 71 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and assessed their IOP measurements obtained with the GAT, NCT, and Corvis ST using a repeated measures ANOVA, a paired t-test with Bonferroni correction, stepwise multiple regression analyses and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsIOP-GAT showed the highest values (13.5 ± 2.1 mmHg [mean ± standard deviation]), followed by IOP-NCT (13.2 ± 2.7 mmHg), IOP-Corvis (10.6 ± 2.8 mmHg), and bIOP-Corvis (10.0 ± 2.3 mmHg). With exceptions of bIOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT, all IOP variations were explained by regression coefficients involving the central corneal thickness. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference between IOP-GAT and the other IOP measurements (IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis, and IOP-NCT), which were -2.90, -3.48, and -0.29 mmHg, respectively. The widths of the 95% limits of agreement between all pairs of IOP measurements were greater than 3 mmHg.
conclusionIOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT, and GAT were not interchangeable. The bIOP-Corvis measurement corrected for the ocular structure.
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.