ArticleJournal of optometry
Lens-vault analysis and its correlation with other biometric parameters using swept-source OCT.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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.
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
purposeTo measure lens vault (LV) and to assess its correlation with various ocular parameters in healthy eyes, using for all measurements the same high-resolution swept-source optical coherence tomographer (SS-OCT).
methodsWe prospectively recruited 67 Caucasian healthy patients whose mean age was 41.9 ± 12.4 years; only their right eye was included in the study. Data were all recorded with the ANTERION SS-OCT and comprised, for each patient, 5 consecutive measurements of LV, anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), axial length (AL), white-to-white (WTW) distance, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber volume (ACV) and spur-to-spur (STS) distance.
resultsMean LV was 0.26 ± 0.23 mm (ranging from -0.24 to 0.78 mm). Data analysis revealed a statistically significant negative correlation between LV and ACD (R=-0.80, p < 0.001), AL (R = -0.36, p = 0.002), and ACV (R = -0.68, p < 0.001), and a positive correlation between LV and LT (R = 0.67, p < 0.001), and age (R = 0.53, p < 0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant correlation was found between LV and WTW (R=-0.17, p = 0.15), CCT (R = 0.11, p = 0.36) or STS (R=-0.10, p = 0.41).
conclusionsTaking into account our findings about intra-parameter correlation levels, we believe that LV should be measured and analyzed together with other ocular parameters in clinical routine practice both for diagnosis and for some refractive surgeries.
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.