ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Agreement of ocular response analyzer cornea compensated IOP with corvis ST biomechanical IOP following Femtosecond Laser-assisted LASIK.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in glaucoma biomechanics from 2000 to 2024: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Underestimation of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) After LASIK and PRK: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Wavelet time-frequency analysis enhances noise-resilient quantification of corneal wave velocity and natural frequency in optical coherence elastography.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Corneal biomechanical properties in myopic anisometropia measured by corneal visualization scheimpflug technology.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement by ORA-IOPcc and Corvis-bIOP after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK).
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 56 eyes from 56 consecutive patients scheduled for FS-LASIK were enrolled. All patients had IOP measurement with ORA and Corvis ST by two blinded independent expert examiners. IOP examinations were conducted between 8 and 11 A.M. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months after FS-LASIK.
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 29.1 ± 6.3 years, and 42 (75%) were female. The average of central corneal thickness (CCT) decreased from 537 ± 23 µm at baseline to 458 ± 31 µm after FS-LASIK. The mean postoperative change of IOP was 0.0 ± 2.1 for bIOP and -2.5 ± 3.2 mmHg for IOPcc. The corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA) was -4.1 to 4.1 mmHg and -3.8 to 8.8 mmHg, respectively. Both methods showed no significant correlation between ∆IOP and ∆CCT. The 95% LoA between bIOP and IOPcc after FS-LASIK was -4.8 to 9.1 mmHg.
conclusionsCompared to the ORA-IOPcc, the Corvis-bIOP showed less variation after FS-LASIK and might be a more appropriate choice for measuring IOP in this condition. The agreement of bIOP vs. IOPcc after FS-LASIK is below the clinically acceptable level, and the two methods could not be regarded as interchangeable.
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.