Observational studyPloS one2020
Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Standing, Sitting, Prone, and Supine Positions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Ocular anterior segment and corneal parameters evaluation in celiac disease.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
- Monitoring of central corneal thickness after phacoemulsification-comparison of statical and rotating Scheimpflug pachymetry, and spectral-domain OCT.International 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable.
designRetrospective, Comparative, Observational study.
settingDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, "Scuola Medica Salernitana" University of Salerno, Italy.
methodsOne hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20-32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP).
resultsCT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement.
conclusionsThe findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices.
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.