Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33229643›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of ophthalmology2020

A review of corneal biomechanics: Mechanisms for measurement and the implications for refractive surgery.

Abby Wilson, John Marshall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. VisuMax Flap 2.0: a flap plus technique to reduce incidence of an opaque bubble layer in femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

2 authors.

Abby WilsonWolfson School of Mechanical, Manufacturing and Electrical Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
John MarshallWolfson School of Mechanical, Manufacturing and Electrical Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detailed clinical assessment of corneal biomechanics has the potential to revolutionize the ophthalmic industry through enabling quicker and more proficient diagnosis of corneal disease, safer and more effective surgical treatments, and the provision of customized and optimized care. Despite these wide-ranging benefits, and an outstanding clinical need, the provision of technology capable of the assessment of corneal biomechanics in the clinic is still in its infancy. While laboratory-based technologies have progressed significantly over the past decade, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge regarding corneal biomechanics and how they relate to shape and function, and how they change in disease and after surgical intervention. Here, we discuss the importance, relevance, and challenges associated with the assessment of corneal biomechanics and review the techniques currently available and underdevelopment in both the laboratory and the clinic.

Indexed as

Corneal DiseasesKeratoconusRefractive Surgical ProceduresBiomechanical PhenomenaCorneaCorneal TopographyHumansBiomechanicscorneal crosslinkingcustomized treatmentdiagnostic screeningkeratoconusrefractive surgery

Identifiers

PMID33229643
PMCPMC7856929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.