ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022
Benefits of using corneal topography to choose subjective refraction technique in keratoconus (RE-CON): a prospective comparative crossover clinical study.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04174209 (CHOICE OF SUBJECTIVE OCULAR REFRACTION TECHNIQUE AND CORNEAL TOPOGRAPHY OF KERATOCONUS), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Choice of subjective ocular refraction technique and corneal topography of keratoconus
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn prospective no-masking, comparative, crossover monocenter clinical trial, we aimed to evaluate whether the optimal subjective refraction technique varies with the keratoconus topography and to identify relevant topographic criteria.
methodThis study included 72 keratoconus eyes with impaired visual acuity. Each eye tested three methods of refraction (Jackson cylinder, astigmatism dial, stenopeic slit), resulting in three eyeglass lenses. Patients were assigned to the group corresponding to the eyeglass lens offering the best visual acuity. Five topographical characteristics were collected via the Pentacam: mean keratometry (Km), maximum keratometry (Kmax), distance from corneal center to Kmax (dKmax), Belin/Ambrosio Display (BAD_D), and index of surface variance (ISV).
resultsForty-six eyes were included in the dial group (64.8%), 23 eyes in the cylinder group (32.4%), and only 2 eyes in the slit group (2.8%); thus, we only compared dial and cylinder groups. The main analysis retrieved a significant probability to choose dial technic for BAD_D (p = 0.024); when BAD_D is > 9.71 (ROC threshold), the positive predictive value (PPV) = 89.5%, and for ISV, p = 0.012; when ISV is > 77, PPV = 89.1%. The sub-analysis of patients with different visual acuities between cylinder and dial confirmed these results with slightly different thresholds: the probability to choose dial technic was for BAD_D, p = 0.03; when BAD_D is > 7.55, PPV = 90%, and for ISV, p = 0.0084; when ISV is > 71, PPV = 88.5%.
conclusionRefraction method is linked to topographic indices ISV and BAD_D. A BAD_D > 7.55 indicates the dial method. In addition to keratoconus screening and diagnosis, this study suggests a new application of the topographer to select a suitable refraction method for eyeglass prescription.
trial registrationStudy registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov database under n°: NCT04174209.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34415365What 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.