ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Biometric Determinants of Epithelial Thickness Profile Across a Wide Range of Refractive Errors.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal Epithelial Thickness Mapping in Healthy Population Corneas Using MS-39 Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Blepharoptosis and corneal epithelial thickness alterations, is there any relation?BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Corneal Epithelial Thickness Mapping: A Major Review.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Age-Related Changes in Corneal Epithelial Thickness Measured with an Ultrasound Pachymeter.Clinical interventions in aging · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the corneal epithelial thickness (CET) profiles and their correlations with axial length (AL) and anterior corneal radius of curvature (Rm F) across different refractive error groups.
methodsA total of 1225 eyes of 616 normal patients were included. CET mapping, AL, and Rm F were obtained using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, optical biometry, and Scheimpflug corneal tomography, respectively. In the CET map, one central (2 mm), eight paracentral (2-5 mm), and eight peripheral (5-6 mm) quadrants were evaluated separately. The subjects were divided into four groups based on their refractive status: hyperopia (spherical equivalent [SE] ≥ +0.50 D), emmetropia (SE > -0.50 D and < +0.50 D), low myopia (SE ≤ -0.50 D and > -3.0 D), and moderate-high myopia (SE ≤ -3.0 D) groups. Linear mixed model analysis with Bonferroni correction was used to compare CET according to refractive error groups. The correlations between the CET profile and the AL and Rm F were analyzed.
resultsThe central CET was 53.7 ± 3.3 μm in hyperopia (n = 34), 53.2 ± 2.9 μm in emmetropia (n = 353), 52.8 ± 2.9 μm in low myopia (n = 677), and 52.0 ± 3.1 μm in moderate-high myopia (n = 161). Although thinning was observed in CET in all quadrants from hyperopia to moderate-high myopia, it was only significant in the superior and superonasal quadrants at the 2-5 mm and 5-6 mm-diameter rings. While AL and CET were significantly positively correlated (r range 0.17-0.28) in the moderate-high myopia group, Rm F and CET were significantly positively correlated (r range 0.08-0.10) in the low and moderate-high myopia groups.
conclusionCET varied according to different refractive error groups and was positively correlated with AL and Rm F, particularly in the moderate-high myopia group.
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.