ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Elevation Matrix Data in the Evaluation of Keratoconus and Normal Corneas.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive evaluation of oculus pentacam in subclinical keratoconus and clinical keratoconus patients at different stages.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo determine whether elevation matrix data of the anterior corneal surface could be useful for the diagnosis of keratoconus.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study, subjects aged 10-40 years with keratoconus (n = 74) or age-matched controls (n = 36) underwent complete ophthalmological examination, including Scheimpflug corneal topography (Pentacam HR). Exclusion criteria comprised previous ocular surgery, other eye disease, or significant corneal scarring. A raw data matrix of distance measurements to the most anterior corneal point was used to compare each subject with the mean normal cornea. A central 6-mm zone (6.1 × 6.1 mm) and two inferior eccentric matrices (0.4 × 6.1 and 1.1 × 1.1 mm) were used. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, likelihood ratio, accuracy, and odds ratio.
resultsSensitivity of central matrix for the diagnosis of keratoconus was low (6.7%) whereas specificity reached 94.4%. Sensitivity and specificity were respectively 93.2% and 94% for the 6.1 × 0.4 mm eccentric matrix and 97.2% and 97.2% for the 1.1 × 1.1 mm eccentric matrix. Positive predictive and negative predictive values were 71.4% and 33%, respectively, for the central matrix; 97.1% and 87.1%; 98.6% and 94.5%, for the two eccentric matrices, respectively. The likelihood ratio of a positive test was 1.1, 16.7, and 35, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the eccentric matrices were significantly better in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus (but not definite keratoconus) than other Pentacam indices.
conclusionsUsing eccentric elevation matrix data analysis of the cornea is useful in the detection of keratoconus versus normal corneas.
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.