ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Analysis of Corneal Distortion after Myopic PRK.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Underestimation of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) After LASIK and PRK: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the corneal biomechanical properties (CBP) and their behaviors after myopic refractive surgery both with Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST). This retrospective study included 145 eyes of 145 patients with a mean age of 33.13 ± 9.24 years, who underwent myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for a refractive defect, measured as spherical equivalent, of mean -4.69 ± 2.04 D and have been evaluated before surgery and at 1, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) values significantly decreased after 1 month and remained statistically stable during further follow-ups. CST parameters had a different evolution: only second applanation time (AT2) differences showed a significant variation after 1 month that did not statistically change over time. Highest concavity deformation amplitude (HCDA), highest concavity peak distance (HCPD), first applanation time (AT1) and velocity (AV1) showed continuous significant differences both after 3 and after 6 months. This study suggests that after central surface ablation surgery, such as myopic PRK, corneal shape is remodeling, and its deformation parameters are going to change even at 6 months follow-up. This indicates that it should be important to evaluate refractive surgery patients during a longer follow-up because this could allow earlier diagnosis and better management of late-onset complications.
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.