ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparing the natural progression and clinical features of keratoconus between pediatric and adult patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in tomographic parameters across different wearing and cessation periods of apical clearance-fitted rigid gas-permeable contact lenses in keratoconus.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Keratoconus prevalence in astigmatic adolescents: findings from a nationwide screening setting.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Comparative Assessment of Corneal Imaging Devices for Pediatric Patients: Evaluating Keratometric Measurements and Wavefront Aberrations.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2025Article
- Scheimpflug Tomographic Indices for Classifying Normal, Down Syndrome and Clinical Keratoconus in Pediatric Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Natural history and predictors for progression in pediatric keratoconus.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Vision-related quality of life among patients with keratoconus: a cross sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To present the natural course of keratoconus (KC) and compare pediatric and adult patients. Design A retrospective cohort study. Setting Hospital-based. Patient Population In total, 152 patients (288 eyes) diagnosed with KC at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, were included. Previously managed patients and those with missing optical data were excluded. Observation Procedures Patients were divided into pediatric (≤ 18 years) and adult (> 18 years) groups. Demographics, clinical data, and optical variables were collected, including corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive error, and keratometric readings (K). Main Outcome Measure Optical variables at the final follow-up before aggressive treatment. Results In total, 20 pediatric (37 eyes) and 132 adults (251 eyes) patients were eligible for this study. The mean follow-up time was 2.98 years. Male predominance was observed in both groups. Both groups had similar clinical characteristics and optical variables at the initial diagnosis. Pediatric patients progressed significantly more rapidly in refractive errors, including spheres and cylinders, spherical equivalence, steep K, and flat K during the follow-up. However, significant change between the two study groups was only seen in sphere refractive error spherical equivalence. Conclusion Pediatric patients had more rapidly progressive KC than adult patients, so early detection and frequent follow-up for prompt interventions are necessary for these patients.
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.