ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2021
Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imbalance of Pro-Oxidant and Anti-Oxidant Biomarkers in Patients with Keratoconus.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Extremely asymmetric ectasia: Tomographically unilateral keratoconus.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Early diagnosis of keratoconus using corneal biomechanics and OCT derived technologies.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Tear Proteomic Analysis From Offspring of Keratoconus Patients: New Insights Into Corneal Biomechanical Weakness and Disease Risk Stages.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- A Novel Approach to Fabricate Early Keratoconus Phantom Models.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of indices for the assessment and classification of keratoconus based on optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug technology.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the VAE-NT index: a novel biomechanical parameter for distinguishing subclinical corneal abnormalities.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of Forme Fruste Keratoconus Using Corvis ST Sequences with Digital Image Correlation and Machine Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Distinguishing subclinical from clinical keratoconus by corneal measurements.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Revisiting Pentacam Parameters in the Diagnosis of Subclinical and Mild Keratoconus Based on Different Grading System DefinitionsTurkish journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Detection ability of corneal biomechanical parameters for early diagnosis of ectasia.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Analysis of potential impact factors of corneal biomechanics in myopia.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Comprehensive Assessment of Corvis ST Biomechanical Indices in Normal and Keratoconus Corneas with Reference to Corneal Enantiomorphism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of anterior segment parameters of the eye between type 2 diabetic with and without diabetic retinopathy and non-diabetic.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Quantitative Assessment of Biomechanical Properties of the Human Keratoconus Cornea Using Acoustic Radiation Force Optical Coherence Elastography.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Spatial Assessment of Heterogeneous Tissue Natural Frequency Using Micro-Force Optical Coherence Elastography.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Differences of Corneal Biomechanics Among Thin Normal Cornea, Forme-Fruste Keratoconus, and Cornea After SMILE.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the dynamic corneal response (DCR) and tomographic parameters of thin normal cornea (TNC) with thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) (≤ 500 µm), forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) and mild keratoconus (MKC) had their central corneal thickness (CCT) matched by Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) and corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST).
methodsCCT were matched in 50 eyes with FFKC, 50 eyes with MKC, and 53 TNC eyes with TCT ≤ 500 µm. The differences in DCR and tomographic parameters among the three groups were compared. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic significance of these parameters. Back propagation (BP) neural network was used to establish the keratoconus diagnosis model.
resultsFifty CCT-matched FFKC eyes, 50 MKC eyes and 50 TNC eyes were included. The age and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) did not differ significantly among the three groups (all P > 0.05). The index of height asymmetry (IHA) and height decentration (IHD) differed significantly among the three groups (all P < 0.05). IHD also had sufficient strength (area under the ROC curves (AUC) > 0.80) to differentiate FFKC and MKC from TNC eyes. Partial DCR parameters showed significant differences between the MKC and TNC groups, and the deflection amplitude of the first applanation (A1DA) showed a good potential to differentiate (AUC > 0.70) FFKC and MKC from TNC eyes. Diagnosis model by BP neural network showed an accurate diagnostic efficiency of about 91%.
conclusionsThe majority of the tomographic and DCR parameters differed among the three groups. The IHD and partial DCR parameters assessed by Corvis ST distinguished FFKC and MKC from TNC when controlled for CCT.
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.