ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Corneal Biomechanical Parameters and Central Corneal Thickness in Glaucoma Patients, Glaucoma Suspects, and a Healthy Population.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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.
- Agreement between intraocular pressure measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry with and without fluorescein in consecutive Ghanaian patients.Ghana medical journal · 2025Trial
- Diurnal variations in corneal biomechanics in healthy young adults.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparison of biomechanical indices measured by ocular response analyzer between children and elderly: a systematic review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Central Corneal Thickness and Glaucoma Risk: The Importance of Corneal Pachymetry in Screening Adults Over 50 and Glaucoma Suspects.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Corneal Biomechanical Measures for Glaucoma: A Clinical Approach.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Effect of mydriatic eye drops (combined 0.8% tropicamide and 5% phenylephrine) on the measurements of corneal parameters using Pentacam.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Early influence of endotamponade on corneal biomechanical parameters, central corneal thickness and accuracy of intraocular pressure measurement.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Correlation between radial peripapillary vascular density and reduced central corneal thickness in glaucoma suspect patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Modification of Corneal Biomechanics and Intraocular Pressure Following Non-Penetrating Deep Sclerectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Updates in Clinical and Translational Glaucoma Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Bidirectional Causal Relationships between Corneal Biomechanics and Glaucoma or Intraocular Pressure.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and central corneal thickness (CCT), measurements were taken between a healthy population (controls), patients diagnosed with glaucoma (DG), and glaucoma suspect patients due to ocular hypertension (OHT), family history of glaucoma (FHG), or glaucoma-like optic discs (GLD). Additionally, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg) and corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) were compared between the different groups of patients.
methodsIn this prospective analytical-observational study, a total of 1065 patients (one eye of each) were recruited to undergo Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) testing, ultrasound pachymetry, and clinical examination. Corneal biomechanical parameters (CH, CRF), CCT, IOPg, and IOPcc were measured in the control group (
resultsThe mean CH in the DG group (9.69 mmHg) was significantly lower compared to controls (10.75 mmHg; mean difference 1.05,
conclusionThis study presents corneal biomechanical values (CH, CRF), CCT, IOPg, and IOPcc for diagnosed glaucoma patients, three suspected glaucoma groups, and a healthy population, using the ORA. Mean CH values were markedly lower in the DG group (diagnosed with glaucoma damage) compared to the other groups. No significant difference was found in CCT between the DG and control groups. Unexpectedly, CRF showed higher values in all groups than in the control group, but the difference was only statistically significant in the suspect groups (FHG, GLD, and OHT), not in the DG group.
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.