ArticleEye (London, England)2023
ABCD progression display for keratoconus progression: a sensitivity-specificity study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demographic and topographic findings suggesting poor response to crosslinking-iontophoresis in patients with progressive keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the ABCD progression display for keratoconus progression.
methodsData was collected from patients that underwent at least two Pentacam assessments 6 months apart. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the ABCD progression display. Progression was defined by criterion 1: change in two ABCD parameters above 80% confidence interval (CI) or criterion 2: change in one ABCD parameter above 95%CI. Receiver operating characteristic analysis compared the area under the curve (AUC) of all ABCD parameter combinations.
resultsThirty eyes were evaluated over a median time of 10.3 months. Progression by criterion 1 resulted in a sensitivity of 61.9% and specificity of 88.9%. Progression by criterion 2 resulted in higher sensitivity (80.9%) and specificity (100%). Pairwise comparisons of the ROC curves show that the AUC achieved by criterion 2 was significantly higher than criterion 1 (0.905 vs. 0.754, p = 0.0332). Evaluation of all ABCD combinations with a significant change of 80% or 95% CI did not show superiority over criterion 1 or 2 regarding progression detection. The D parameter had a very low AUC (0.5-0.556).
conclusionsThe ABCD progression display can assess keratoconus progression with high sensitivity and specificity, thus assisting the patients' decision-making process. The D parameter did not contribute to the sensitivity or specificity of this classification.
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.