ArticleCell and tissue banking2022
Reliability and efficiency of corneal thickness measurements using sterile donor tomography in the eye bank.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- In situ donor keratometry in deceased patients as a novel screening technique for eye banking.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Review for special issue: Corneal lamellar surgery: Present outcomes and future perspectives.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the reliability and efficiency of sterile pachymetric measurements of donor corneas based on tomographic data using two different methods: a "manual" and a "(semi-)automated" method. Twenty-five (25) donor corneas (50%) stored in MI and 25 (50%) in MII were imaged 5 times consecutively using an anterior segment OCT (AS-OCT). The central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured both with the manual measurement tool of the AS-OCT (= CCTm) and with a MATLAB self-programmed software allowing (semi-)automated analysis (= CCTa). We analyzed the reliability of CCTm and CCTa using Cronbach´s alpha (α) and Wilcoxon signed-Rank Test. Concerning CCTm, 68 measurements (54.4%) in MI and 46 (36.8%) in MII presented distortions in the imaged 3D-volumes and were discarded. Concerning CCTa, 5 (4%) in MI and 1 (0.8%) in MII were not analyzable. The mean (± SD) CCTm was 1129 ± 6.8 in MI and 820 ± 5.1 µm in MII. The mean CCTa was 1149 ± 2.7 and 811 ± 2.4 µm, respectively. Both methods showed a high reliability with a Cronbach´s α for CCTm of 1.0 (MI/MII) and for CCTa of 0.99 (MI) and 1.0 (MII). Nevertheless, the mean SD of the 5 measurements was significantly higher for CCTm compared to CCTa in MI (p = 0.03), but not in MII (p = 0.92). Sterile donor tomography proves to be highly reliable for assessment of CCT with both methods. However, due to frequent distortions regarding the manual method, the (semi-)automated method is more efficient and should be preferred.
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.