Observational studyPloS one2020
A comparison of the corneal biomechanics in pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, primary open-angle glaucoma and healthy controls using Corvis ST.
Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential Effects of Corneal Biomechanics on Superficial and Deep Vessel Density and Their Association with Central Visual Function in Glaucoma Patients with Myopia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparing corneal biomechanical parameters between primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma using corvis ST.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The Ocular Surface and the Anterior Segment of the Eye in the Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Corneal Biomechanical Changes Induced by Chronic Elevated Intraocular Pressure: Implications for Glaucoma Pathogenesis and Management.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Corneal Biomechanical Measures for Glaucoma: A Clinical Approach.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Ocular Biomechanics and Glaucoma.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Biomechanical analysis of ocular diseases and its in vitro study methods.Biomedical engineering online · 2022Review
- Association Between Ocular Biomechanics Measured With Corvis ST and Glaucoma Severity in Patients With Untreated Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Corneal Hysteresis, Intraocular Pressure, and Progression of Glaucoma: Time for a "Hyst-Oric" Change in Clinical Practice?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Corneal Biomechanics for Ocular Hypertension, Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma, and Amyloidotic Glaucoma: A Comparative Study by Corvis ST.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Correlations among Corneal Biomechanical Parameters, Stiffness, and Thickness Measured Using Corvis ST and Pentacam in Patients with Ocular Hypertension.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the corneal biomechanical parameters between pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PXG), primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and healthy controls using Corvis ST.
methodsA prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted which included 132 treatment-naïve eyes which underwent Corvis ST. The study cohort comprised of 44 eyes with PXG, 42 eyes with POAG and 46 healthy controls. Corneal biomechanical parameters, which included corneal velocities, length of corneal applanated surface, deformation amplitude (DA), peak distance and radius of curvature, were compared between the groups using analysis of variance models.
resultsThe 3 groups were demographically similar. The mean IOP was 15.7 ±3 mmHg in the control group, 21.3 ±5 mmHg in the POAG group and 25.8 ±7 mmHg in the PXG group (p<0.0001). Corneal pachymetry was similar across the 3 groups. Mean DA was significantly lower (p<0.0001) in the PXG group (0.86 ±0.18 mm) compared to the POAG group (0.97 ±0.14mm) and the control group (1.10 ±0.15mm). Corneal velocities were also found to be statistically significantly different between the groups. However, after adjusting for IOP, there was no difference in any of the biomechanical parameters between the 3 groups.
conclusionCorneal biomechanical parameters measured on Corvis ST are not different between eyes with PXG, POAG and healthy controls after adjusting for IOP.
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.